Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (BIDEFORD HARBOUR) BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Darlington Bypass

Mr. Kitson: asked the Minister of Transport whether the work on the Darlington bypass is up to schedule; and when it is hoped the by-pass will be in operation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): The three major bridges which were started in 1962 have been completed. The roadworks were started as planned in April, 1963, but progress was hampered by the weather. Given reasonable conditions this summer the bypass should be in use by the spring of 1965, as planned.

Mr. Kitson: Can my hon. Friend say how long the bypass will be when it is completed, and what plans the Government have for the second phase of the northern end of it?

Mr. Galbraith: The bypass will be about 10 miles long when it is completed. With regard to the north, a line has been fixed as far as Chester-le-Street, and, subject to statutory processes, we hope to start work on the bridges in the winter, and on the roadworks in 1965 after the bypass is completed.

M.4 (Langley-Maidenhead Section)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has to extend the three-lane traffic on each of the dual

roads used by traffic in one direction only on the M.4 between Langley and Maidenhead.

Mr. Galbraith: We have no plans for widening to three lanes the present two-lane carriageways on the Slough and Maidenhead bypass sections of the M.4.

Mr. Brockway: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the danger caused by cars overtaking lorries in the outside lane? In view of the fact that the rest of the M.4 is to have a three-lane roadway in each direction, why cannot he, as part of this construction, apply that to this sector where there is very heavy traffic as it is a by-pass to Slough?

Mr. Galbraith: The answer is that traffic where there are two lanes is not as heavy as where there are three lanes. In the three-lane part east of Langley we expect that at least 20 per cent. of the traffic will leave for other destinations and not come on to the two-lane part in which the hon. Gentleman is interested.

Mr. Brockway: Is not the Minister quite wrong? He says that traffic on other sections will not be so great, but the other sections have not yet been built, and he is talking about expectations.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman must realise that before we build roads, we estimate what we think will be the amount of traffic. That is why we build certain sections of a road to a three-lane dimension and other parts such as that in which the hon. Gentleman is interested, as a two-lane road.

Three-Lane Roads

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has in order to remove the danger caused by three-lane traffic on a single road used by vehicles in both directions.

Mr. Galbraith: We do not accept that three-lane roads are inherently dangerous—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—but any road may be dangerous if it is overloaded beyond its design capacity. Those three-lane roads which are seriously overloaded are being improved to dual carriageways as quickly as possible within the limits of the funds available and competing claims of other improvements. We are also pressing ahead with trials of


offset double white lines to give alternately two traffic lanes in one direction and one in the other.

Mr. Brockway: Does not the reception given to the hon. Gentleman's Answer from hon. Members on both sides of the House show that the Ministry of Transport is completely out of touch with the minds of motorists on this matter? May I ask whether he will look particularly at the section of the A.4 in the green belt, which is necessarily dimly lighted and across which shadows sweep, between London Airport and Slough, and realise the dangers that there are in that section of the road?

Mr. Galbraith: I am quite willing to look at the section of road to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I must say that he and his hon. Friends and a great many motorists are wrong in their belief that three-lane roads are inherently dangerous. The Road Research Laboratory recently carried out a study which revealed that the number of accidents is not unduly high and that only 2½ per cent. of the accidents involved vehicles overtaking and travelling in opposite directions.

Mr. Strauss: Is the Minister aware that sometimes his Ministry builds new roads for three lines of traffic and then, a few years later, decides that a mistake has been made and widens the road, at great expense, into a double roadway? Is he aware that the Gatwick by-pass is an example and that it is the inability of the Government to estimate the amount of traffic which will use the roads that they build which in the end causes not only accidents but a great waste of money?

Mr. Galbraith: The right hon. Gentleman is wrongly informed. We have only 5½ miles of trunk road to be built over the next four years with a capacity for three lines of traffic.

West Hartlepool—A.1 (Road Conditions)

Commander Kerans: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to improve the road conditions from West HartlepoolviaGreatham to the A.1.

Mr. Galbraith: We hope to issue grant later this year on a scheme for by-passing Greatham. When this is completed the

A.689 link to the A.19 trunk road will be a reasonably good road.
The improvement of A.19 as far as A.1 at Dishforth is included in the Government's special programme for the North-East and we aim to start work on all sections within the next five years. This programme also includes improvement of other east-west links between A.19 and A.1.

Commander Kerans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. Surely we have been nibbling at the problem of communications to the A.1 via Greatham for a long time? Will he do all in his power to speed this up, otherwise we shall not get any industry into the area?

Mr. Galbraith: That is exactly what we are doing. We are speeding it up.

Mr. Shinwell: What does the hon. Gentleman mean when he says that work on the A.19, along with other links, will be commenced within the next five years? Does that mean one year, or two, or three years hence, or four and a half years hence? May we have some clear indication about how this work is proceeding? Has he any idea of the effect on the industrial development of the area?

Mr. Galbraith: I said that work would start on all sections within the next five years. The work on some sections will start earlier than five years.

Tax-free Toll Bridges

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Transport if he will indicate the sources from which he obtained his information concerning the ownership of certain tax-free toll bridges.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): In most cases from the highway authority for the road leading up to the bridge.

Mr. Hamilton: Whatever the source, it is not a very good one. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that of the five bridges and their ownership to which he referred in an Answer which he gave in April the information about two of them was incorrect? Is he aware that Swynford Bridge is not owned by the Earl of Abingdon, and Aldwark Bridge is not owned by the Yorkshire Farmers


Ltd. It was sold two years ago? Can he take steps to see that his information is accurate in future; and, when he gets the information, will he let me know who are the owners of the bridges?

Mr. Marples: The hon. Member has not been wholly accurate in some of his remarks about toll bridges. I am bound to tell him that these private bridges have nothing to do with my statutory duties except in a most general sense, and therefore I could easily say to the hon. Gentleman or to any hon. Member that it is not my job and I am not providing the information. Because the hon. Gentleman is such a fair chaser of statistics, I thought that I would do my best to give him some information.

Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order. In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Off-Street Parking Facilities

Mr. Channon: asked the Minister of Transport if he will take powers to require local authorities to provide adequate off-street parking facilities where these do not at present exist.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir. Though there is, in my opinion, an urgent need for greatly expanded off-street parking facilities in this country generally, local authorities will, I hope, take action on their own initiative and in their own interests and those of the motoring public.

Mr. Channon: Will my right hon. Friend keep this closely under consideration, because there is a tremendous lack of off-street parking facilities? If local authorities are not prepared to provide them, will he consider at a later stage taking powers to make sure that they do so?

Mr. Marples: We shall see where we get to at a later stage, but some local authorities have not yet planned for the future for car parks as they should. I intend to send out a planning bulletin on parking giving general instructions and guidance to local authorities, and we shall see where we go from there.

Mr. Harold Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while it would be unfair to blame him for this problem of

living with the motor car—and I should have nothing to do with that foolish suggestion—nevertheless it is of definite importance that in these days of pressure on local authorities the Government should have the courage to do something about compulsory powers of land purchase in order to find parking places off the roads which are overloaded with cars at the price of life and limb?

Mr. Marples: The powers are there if local authorities wish to use them. The point is that a county or county borough must decide how much parking space is available in relation to the other uses of land. County and district councils must decide how space is to be provided and controlled. There are adequate powers for that. The difficulty is to get some local authorities interested in the subject.

Parking Control

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Transport what percentage of the local authorities which in 1961 had decided to install parking meters have now decided to introduce instead other forms of parking control.

Mr. Marples: By the end of 1961, 13 local authorities had applied for designation orders, thereby showing a definite intention to install parking meters. All these have parking meters now.

Mr. Hall: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that a certain number of authorities are departing from their original intention to install parking meters? Does not this show that these authorities are very far-sighted? Will my right hon. Friend, as a very far-sighted Minister, give encouragement to other forms of parking control?

Mr. Marples: I have tried to do my best to give encouragement to other forms of control. That is why we introduced, in the 1962 Act, provisions for discs if a local authority wished to take the initiative and bring forward a disc scheme. I am at present looking informally at one such scheme from Cheltenham. But each local area has its own special problems. In some cases, meters are necessary—in the heart of London, for example. In other, smaller, towns they may not be necessary. Each local authority should deal with its problems on their merits. I would inform my hon.


Friend that in 1961 we had 8,000 parking meters in London. In 1963 the number went up to 15,000, in 1964 another 1,000 have been added and a further 2,900 are under consideration. It is, therefore, clear that in the centre of London people have not departed from the idea of parking meters.

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Transport how many metropolitan boroughs are now considering parking control by means of discs or traffic wardens.

Mr. Marples: As far as I know, only two metropolitan boroughs are considering the possibilities of parking control with discs. I am studying proposals which they have put to me informally. No formal proposals have been made.
I have not received any proposals from metropolitan boroughs for the control of short-term parking solely by means of waiting restrictions enforced by traffic wardens.

Mr. Hall: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the disc system makes far more economical use of available road space than does the meter system? Would he not also agree that by and large the proliferation of these hideous meters throughout a city pleases no one except the dog population?

Mr. Marples: I am not responsible for the dog population. It is very difficult in question and answer to discuss the merits of various restrictions upon cars in the streets, but I am certain that, while meters have some disadvantages, they have a great many advantages. They show clearly and accurately the passage of time and when a given period has expired. What is important is that they give rise to fewer offences. Paris has about 15 times the number of tickets issued in a comparable area of London—that is, 3 million a year as against 200,000. Parking meters allow for more flexible control and they have great merit. At the same time, I recognise that they have disadvantages. But on balance I think that they are the right thing for London.

South Orbital Road

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Transport if he will now publish the proposed route of the Farnborough to

Croydon link of the South Orbital Road, and of the South Orbital Road itself.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett): My right hon. Friend has already published the proposed route of the South Orbital Road from the Dartford Tunnel to the A.20 trunk road and will publish proposals for further sections of the road as the preparatory work is completed.
The Farnborough to Croydon link is a potential classified road for which Kent County Council and Croydon County Borough Council are the responsible highway authorities.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Minister wrote to me on 13th March to say that the investigations which were being carried out on his behalf by the Kent County Council on a number of alternative routes had already been completed and were under consideration by his Department? What, therefore, is the reason for this further three months' delay? Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciate that until a decision is made, consideration of planning applications all along the alternative routes which might be selected must be deferred and that great anxiety will be caused to local residents along any one of the possible alternatives? In view of this, will the Minister consider publishing a map showing all the alternatives which are under consideration by the Department?
Thirdly, does the Minister realise that one of the proposed alternative routes passes through the municipal golf course which the Orpington Urban District Council was hoping to start constructing this summer? As this is an amenity which is very much desired by the people of Orpington, will the Minister come to a decision quickly?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: We appreciate the importance of avoiding unnecessary anxiety. That is why we must be satisfied that the best line has been chosen before the proposals are advertised. I cannot agree with the hon. Member that it would be wise to publish all the alternative suggestions which are put forward. That would merely multiply anxiety, in many cases quite needlessly.

Traffic Signs (Worboys Committee's Report)

Mr. Clive Bossom: asked the Minister of Transport when it is proposed to lay before Parliament the new traffic signs regulations implementing the Worboys Report and to publish the Traffic Signs and Markings Manual.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Transport what are the reasons for the delay in implementing his acceptance of the Report of the Worboys Committee.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: My right hon. Friend said on 2nd March in reply to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Ledger) that, because the necessary consultations with representative organisations were taking longer than expected, it was unlikely that the regulations to give effect to the recommendations of the Worboys Committee would be ready before September. Those recommendations were of a fundamental character and involve a change over to a completely new system of signs. Many of them too, were, of necessity, in broad terms which have to be developed to cover many points of detail. I cannot yet give a precise date for the laying of the regulations or the publication of the Manual, but work on both is proceeding as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Bossom: Is it not humanly possible to hurry this up? Could not my right hon. Friend the Minister bring in a crash programme, because local authorities and the sign manufacturers are marking time? In the meantime no signs are being replaced.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: No, Sir. A crash programme would be an unwise thing and, indeed, would lead to crashes of another kind. We are giving special authority for the erection of the new type of directional signs on new roads and where road improvements make this necessary. Other types of signs, though, cannot be introduced in advance of the release of widespread publicity as to their meaning. We are also giving consideration to permitting a go-ahead on the erection of directional signs on primary roads—that is, trunk roads and some Class I roads.

Mr. Gower: Is my hon. and gallant Friend quite satisfied that throughout the consideration of this matter enough has been done to achieve a large amount of uniformity, both in this country and with countries on the Continent, since so many of our motorists drive on the Continent now and so many Continental drivers come here?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I again emphasise that that was the purpose of the recommendations made by the Worboys Committee.

Trunk and Classified Roads (Lighting)

Mr. Clive Bossom: asked the Minister of Transport what reply he has made to the further representations received this year from the County Councils Association in regard to the improvement of lighting of trunk roads, and urging the introduction of legislation to enable highway authorities to provide street lighting on classified roads.

Mr. Marples: We have told the Association that we accept that some reform is needed. But the problem is a complicated one. Grants for street lighting cannot be considered apart from the review, which is now proceeding, of the financial relationship between central and local government. Moreover, any revision of the administrative structure, which dates back to the last century, would involve legislation which obviously could not be enacted by this Parliament. But my Department is preparing proposals for discussion with the local authority associations.

Mr. Bossom: As lighting is a major contributor to road safety, could not my right hon. Friend look into this and allow perhaps a limited expansion of lighting in danger stretches? Does he not agree that, where adequate lighting has been erected, accidents have been reduced by 30 per cent.? These are figures from his own research officials.

Mr. Marples: I honestly think that this is a problem which ought not to be tackled in a piecemeal fashion, because one of the difficulties is to work out an objective test of the circumstances in which a high standard of lighting is needed, and such an exercise cannot be confined to trunk roads in isolation.

Accidents, Parliament Square

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the causes of the accident which occurred at 11 p.m. on Monday 7th June at the junction of Bridge Street and Whitehall involving three persons, one of whom was killed;

(2) how many accidents have occurred at the junction of Parliament Street, Bridge Street, and Parliament Square, during the past two years; how many were fatal; how many involved diplomats and their staff who claimed diplomatic privilege; and what new signs and precautions, such as speed limits, he has in view to prevent these accidents.

Mr. Marples: With permission—

Mr. Rankin: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Would the right hon. Gentleman care to answer Questions Nos. 33 and 37 together, with my permission?

Mr. Marples: Mr. Speaker, I am always so anxious to oblige the hon. Gentleman that I will certainly do so. I will answer Questions Nos. 33 and 37 together.
There was an accident on Monday, 8th June at 10.50 p.m. in Parliament Square just south of its junction with Parliament Street, when a collision occurred between a motor van emerging from Parliament Street and two vehicles, one a private car and the other a motor scooter, moving from Great George Street towards Bridge Street. Fortunately no one was killed, but the driver of the scooter and his passenger were seriously injured.
During the past two years there have been 25 personal injury accidents at this junction. None was fatal. There were two cases of serious injury and 23 of slight injury. In no case was diplomatic immunity claimed.
This accident record is a great improvement over that for the previous two years and is not exceptional for so busy a junction. The junction is controlled at all times by traffic signals or by the police, and I see no other traffic measures I could usefully introduce.

Mr. Rankin: I am pleased to hear that the cyclist was not killed. My information was that he was projected into the air to a sufficient height to kill most men when they returned again to earth.

Can the Minister say whether the cyclist has now recovered from his injuries? Does the Minister realise that there is a great deal of concern about the number of accidents that have occurred at this corner, and also about the speed at which motor car drivers come down and go up Whitehall? Not only are road users and pedestrians gravely concerned about this matter, but those charged with the duty of controlling traffic speed are also concerned. Would not the Minister consider the suggestion that I made that he should take some special precautions with regard to this particular crossing?

Mr. Marples: I am afraid I cannot give any information about the health of the person who was injured. I think that the less I say about this the better, because I understand that court proceedings are at any rate being considered. In 1961 we took certain measures which reduced the number of accidents at this junction, which had been 50 in the preceding two years, to 25 in the last two years. So we have halved the number of accidents by the measures we have taken. The accidents that have occurred in the last two years have been mostly of the nose-to-tail collision type, which, unfortunately, are not uncommon at signals.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, if the House chooses to accept the recommendation of the Committee on Accommodation, this dangerous crossroads at Bridge Street will be removed altogether?

Sale-Altrincham Bypass

Sir S. Storey: asked the Minister of Transport when he intends to authorise the length of the proposed Sale-Altrincham bypass from M.62 to Carrington Lane B.5166.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: It is too early to say. The joint committee of local highway authorities in the South-East Lancashire and North-East Cheshire conurbation gave higher priority to other schemes in the area and did not include this bypass in their recommended programme of works up to 1972. The situation will be reassessed in the light of the more comprehensive transport survey which the local highway authorities are now carrying out.

Sir S. Storey: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the development of the oil terminal at Partington and of Petrochemicals at Carrington is causing very heavy tanker traffic through Urmston seeking to gain access to the M.62? Is he also aware that Urmston is a residential district and its roads are totally unsuited to this traffic? Therefore, will he give urgent consideration to an earlier start on this link, which would enable such traffic to reach M.62 quickly?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: As I said, we will look at this again when we have the result of the forthcoming transport survey.

Mr. Mapp: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that access to Manchester from the south and to the south through the M.6, which is concerned with this road, has turned out differently from the forecasts of his advisers and that the trunk road into Manchester through Altrincham, Sale and Stretford is completely overburdened? Will he look at this problem again, because the forecasts have not been vindicated by the facts, as drivers are choosing the Manchester direction via Knutsford, rather than via Holmes Chapel?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: These are some of the reasons for the further transport survey which is being carried out.

London-South Wales Motorway

Mr. Awdry: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will expedite the construction of that part of the proposed M.4 motorway which will run from Liddington westwards to the Severn Bridge in view of the increased traffic congestion which will arise on Wiltshire roads as a result of the opening of the bridge.

Sir A. Hurd: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now obtained from surveys all the information he requires to reach a conclusion on the line he will recommend for the M.4 motorway through Berkshire; and when he expects to make a detailed statement.

Mr. C. Morrison: asked the Minister of Transport when he intends to publish the draft scheme for the remaining section of the London to South Wales

motorway M.4; and when construction work will begin.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: My right hon. Friend has now received the report of the consulting engineers who have surveyed the possible alternative routes between Maidenhead and the Gloucestershire boundary. It will take some time to study it and to consult the major local authorities and other interested parties. We do not expect to be able to publish a draft scheme before the autumn of this year at the earliest. It is unlikely that construction could begin for at least a further three years. We certainly wish to press on with this motorway and my right hon. Friend will consider whether it would be possible to give priority to the construction of the western section. But we cannot reach a decision on this point until we have completed our study of the report and the necessary consultations.

Mr. Awdry: Will my hon. and gallant Friend reach a conclusion as quickly as he can in view of the fact that the Wiltshire authorities are agreed among themselves where the road should run?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: We will certainly proceed as quickly as we can.

Sir A. Hurd: May I take it that the Ministry will resume consultations with the local authorities in Berkshire and Wiltshire, so far as that may be necessary, so that we may get a better meeting of minds than we have been able to achieve so far?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Yes, Sir. That is what we hope to achieve.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Concessionary Fares

Mr. Short: asked the Minister of Transport what reply he has sent to the National League of the Blind in reply to its letter dated 5th May regarding concessionary fares for the blind, the disabled and retirement pensioners.

Mr. Galbraith: We have sent the hon. Member a copy of the reply.

Mr. Short: But is the hon. Gentleman aware that as it has taken so long to


get this reply I have seen the letter, and that it is based on a completely invalid argument? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of us do not accept the argument that this involves the principle of assisting people with concessions rather than with finance, which the Government propose doing, because this does not involve public funds in any way? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my Bill would not even allow the rate fund to make a contribution to this, so it cannot be argued that it would affect assessments of general grant? How can the Government argue that this involves some kind of public expenditure?

Mr. Galbraith: If the hon. Gentleman has already had the reply, I am surprised that he did not withdraw the Question. However, the hon. Gentleman's view on this matter is clearly different from that of the Government. As has been explained on many occasions, we believe in paying people in cash and not in kind so that old-age pensioners have freedom to use the money in their own way. We realise that freedom is a quality to which hon. Gentlemen opposite pay very little attention.

Mr. G. Johnson Smith: Will my hon. Friend point out to retirement pensioners who may be stimulated by Socialist agitation to ask for concessionary fares that the National Federation of Old-Age Pensioners, in its magazine "Pensioners' Voice", has come out firmly against ad hoc concessions of this kind?

Mr. Galbraith: I think that that puts the matter in its proper perspective. Old-age pensioners would much prefer to have cash than to be paid in kind.

Mr. Mellish: Is it not a fact that some local authorities give this concession, and some of them are not necessarily Labour-controlled? In other words, the Minister is saying that they are wrong in principle. Is he aware that the majority of old-age pensioners have to go to the National Assistance Board to have their incomes supplemented, and the Board would not pay concessionary fares?

Mr. Galbraith: Old-age pensioners are very much better off today than they were when the hon. Gentleman's party was in power.

Mr. Short: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Heavy Lorries (Examination)

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that a large number of lorries of over 30 cwt. carrying capacity on the roads are mechanically unsound, he will now introduce legislation for all vehicles of such carrying capacity to be periodically examined.

Mr. Galbraith: I dealt with this problem in my speech on the Motion for the Adournment on 23rd June and at the moment I cannot say more.

Sir B. Janner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his statement on that occasion was entirely unsatisfactory? How on earth can he, in all conscience, allow these heavy lorries to be on the road without a regular test, rather than a check-up as at present? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there are about 750,000 of these vehicles on the road, and that there are only 12 teams dealing with them? Why does he not have a test for these vehicles in the same way as he has a test for a much less vulnerable kind of machine which also does damage? Will he realise that the public will not stand for this kind of thing, and that something should be done very rapidly?

Mr. Galbraith: I am glad that the hon. Member read what I said in the Adjournment debate. I still think that he is exaggerating. The safety record of these vehicles is better than that of any other class, and that is the important thing. However, this summer my right hon. Friend is stepping up the checks on these vehicles on the roads, and having a blitz on them in certain areas.

Mr. Webster: Is it not understandable that the owners of commercial vehicles are reluctant to bring their fleets up to date when they run the risk of having them nationalised, or put completely off the road, with no compensation, if the Labour Party gets into office?

Mr. Galbraith: I certainly think that the policy of the party opposite—in so far as we know what it is—is responsible for undermining the excellent spirit of the road hauliers.

Mr. Mellish: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it has always been assumed in this House that road safety was above party matters? Is it now being said that it does not matter what the community thinks and that it is fair for any section of it to put unsafe vehicles on the road? Is he aware that it is admitted that we have not got the inspectors to carry out these checks? In one year only 12½ per cent. of these vehicles can be checked, which means that it will take over eight years for them all to be checked. What about increasing the number of inspectors?

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member keeps forgetting that the safety record of these vehicles is better than that of any other class. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend is not content to rest there, and is instituting these special spot checks this summer, in the hope of even further improving the safety record of these vehicles.

Road Accidents

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Minister of Transport if he will arrange for comprehensive data and expert assessments of every serious road accident to be collated and studied by a special branch of his Department, with a view to obtaining more accurate information as to the pattern and main and contributory causes of deaths and serious injuries on the roads.

Mr. Marples: Detailed reports of the circumstances of every accident causing death or serious injury are supplied by the police. Other inquiries into particular features of accidents are carried out by various agencies. All this information is already studied by those concerned with road safety both in my Department and the Road Research Laboratory; but my Department is undertaking a review of the present machinery to see how effort in this field can best be deployed.

Mr. Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but does not he agree that the more advances we make in pinpointing the exact causes of accidents the greater chance there is of reducing the high level of death and serious injury on the roads? Does not he get the impression that there is a great danger that unless there is evidence for a clear-cut prosecution, or an inquest

is involved, in the end there tends to be a haphazard method of gathering evidence, and that this does not come through to his Department as it should?

Mr. Marples: That is why we set up the inquiry within my Department. This will involve a lot of complicated organisational and statistical problems, but I hope that we shall get somewhere with our review. Most accidents result from a number of causes acting simultaneously, and are rarely due to one cause, but if we examine a number of accidents it may be possible to establish some factor which is common to them all, and we can take remedial measures in respect of it.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Minister aware that a young woman in my constituency recently lost her life because of an accident which involved a lorry which was overloaded, had inefficient brakes and was badly driven, and that as a result the driver was fined a derisory sum? Why should this lorry not have been examined during the previous 12 months by his examiner? On the basis of the statistics with which the Minister has been kind enough to furnish me, I understand that it would be eight years, on average, before the lorry would be examined. Why should lorries escape examination in this way when private cars, once they have reached five years of age, have to be examined every year? Is the Minister aware that this is a growing scandal, and that there is considerable anger about the way in which some of these heavy lorries are maintained on the roads? I ask the Minister to divert some of his enthusiasm and energy into building up a proper inspection staff.

Mr. Marples: That is exactly what we are doing with these heavy vehicles. We are stepping up this summer our on-the-spot road inspections in all my divisional road engineers' areas. In addition, we are discussing with the manufacturers all sorts of ideas, including the question of power-to-weight ratio, so that they will be able to build to a better specification in the future. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have taken quite a number of steps.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: What progress is being made in ensuring that the police always give full reports of serious accidents to the local road engineers who are


responsible for the relevant stretch of road? In many cases in the past these engineers have not received proper reports.

Mr. Marples: Investigation into certain aspects of road accidents is carried out by a number of agencies. The Road Research Laboratory carries out some, and so do my own vehicle examiners, local authority highway engineers and my Ministry's road engineers. We have area road safety units in Hampshire and Warwickshire, and these units are experimenting with new methods of collecting accident statistics and studying the whole problem. If we require assistance from the police we find that they are always willing to give it.

Mrs. Braddock: Does the additional information in this survey include the requirement to supply to the courts the date upon which the person concerned obtained a driving licence, and for how long he has driven? Is the Minister aware that magistrates dealing with these cases—and I am one—are handicapped because they have no knowledge of the length of time a person has been driving, and that that can have a great effect on the cause of accidents?

Mr. Marples: We are reviewing this. It will be some time before it is finalised. We will certainly take the hon. Lady's point into account in our review.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Minister setting himself a programme to ensure that these heavy lorries are examined at least on the same basis as private cars so that there will come a time—we hope in the near future—when we shall know that every lorry on the road has been examined within a reasonable period?

Mr. Marples: I did not say so. I said that at the present time we have checks which take place on the roadside for the testing of brakes and other things, and I am stepping these up. At the same time, we are looking after the new vehicles; and when it becomes necessary to have other tests, we shall look into that, too.

Yellow Box Crossings

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Transport whether the recent experiment with yellow box crossings has

resulted in speeding the flow of traffic in the West End of London.

Mr. Galbraith: Preliminary reports indicate that the boxes have been helpful, with best results at the busier junctions.
My right hon. Friend announced on 29th June that he had proposed to the local authorities concerned an extension of the experiment to 16 other junctions in London. Observations at these junctions will augment the information being obtained about the first six.

Mr. Costain: Would it be possible, by rewriting the Highway Code, to make this the general procedure at crossings?

Mr. Galbraith: Before doing that we must see whether these experiments turn out to be as successful as they look like being.

Sir J. Maitland: Can my hon. Friend say how many prosecutions there have been since this experiment was inaugurated?

Mr. Galbraith: I regret that I cannot give those figures without notice.

Cars (Seat Belts)

Mr. Channon: asked the Minister of Transport if he will now propose legislation to make the fitting of seat belts in all new cars compulsory.

Mr. Galbraith: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) on 24th June.

Mr. Channon: Would not my hon. Friend agree that all the evidence goes to show that when safety belts are worn the effect of accidents is very much less severe than when they are not worn? Does he not agree that in the end we shall have to come to some system like this? Would it not be a good idea to see that at least all new cars are fitted with safety belts?

Mr. Galbraith: My hon. Friend is perfectly right when he says that the effect of accidents is reduced very substantially by the use of seat belts, but the first thing to do is to wait until the British


Standards Institute has prepared a specification for anchorage points, because until this is done—and my right hon. Friend expects to hear very shortly from the Institute—there would be no purpose in doing what my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Strauss: How long is it since the request went to the British Standards Institute to produce a design of this sort? Is it not some years ago that the Minister asked the Institute to design some anchorage the mechanism of which would be really effective?

Mr. Galbraith: It is a very difficult matter, as I am sure the right hon. Member appreciates, to get an anchorage point suitable for all types of motor cars, but my right hon. Friend is expecting to hear from the Institute within the next month.

Mr. Costain: To help the motorist appreciate the effect of safety belts, will the Minister when issuing statistics of fatal accidents state those in which safety belts were not used?

Mr. Galbraith: That is certainly something which my right hon. Friend will consider.

Private Cars (Passengers)

Mr. Holt: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will introduce legislation amending the Road Traffic Act, 1960, to permit car owners who take passengers to work by car on an expense-sharing basis, to do so without having to obtain a licence as a public service vehicle.

Mr. Galbraith: No, Sir. We have no present evidence to justify such a measure. But in connection with rural transport problems this idea, along with others, will no doubt be looked at by the local rural transport inquiries now in progress.

Mr. Holt: Is not that a rather astonishing Answer? The hon. Gentleman must know that there are many people who take their neighbours to work on a paying basis. Is not this both good-neighbourly and commonsense? Is it not absurd that in so helping their neighbours they should be in fact breaking the law? Should not this be altered?

Mr. Galbraith: I do not know that that is necessarily true. The purpose of the law is to safeguard the bus services. If the practice to which the hon. Member has referred grew, it might endanger the bus service; which is required for those people who have not got private cars, and who have to rely on public transport.

Mr. Webster: Is there not an insurance problem here, because anyone taking a passenger in his motor car as an act of courtesy is in difficulty with the insurance company should there be an accident?

Mr. Galbraith: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. There are insurance difficulties, but I was going to the heart of the matter in my answer to the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Holt: The Minister must be aware that there are many new firms which have started on the peripheries of towns where the bus services are quite inadequate to take workpeople from an area all around the works. Many of those people can get to work only by private transport.

Bus Services

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Transport what action he intends to take to see that there are adequate bus services in all industrial areas and in cases where railway lines or stations have been closed.

Mr. Galbraith: After my right hon. Friend has decided that extra buses are needed following a rail passenger closure, he makes it a condition of his consent that they must be provided when it takes place. In regard to bus services in industrial areas generally, I should be happy to look into any particular cases which the hon. Member likes to bring to my attention.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is that good enough? Does the Minister agree that in areas where we are catering for the export trade it is necessary to have the maximum efficiency? If so, should not that also apply to the transport service for the workpeople?

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member has stated something with which, in general, I am in perfect agreement. If he will


give particular instances where that is not happening I shall be delighted to look into them.

Sir J. Maitland: People come from all parts of the country to seaside resorts. How can we arrange to provide buses to transport people from all over the country, thousands of them, to a seaside resort if the railway station there is closed?

Mr. Galbraith: This question refers to industrial areas, but I am willing to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Sir J. Maitland). The answer is that the buses run from the nearest railway terminus wherever that may be.

Mr. Popplewell: When the Minister makes his final decision in favour of a closure there should be adequate bus services. If a bus company, because of a loss on those services, is not renewing its licences, what steps does the Minister take to ensure that the Railways Board continues to run a road service to cater for those needs? According to the Minister himself, it is the job of the Railways Board when the need is proved to provide a service.

Mr. Galbraith: I thought that the hon. Member would know that my right hon. Friend lays it down as a condition that when a railway service is withdrawn a bus service should be supplied in its place. The railways cannot remove that bus service without getting my right hon. Friend's permission.

London and Gatwick Airports (Monorail Service)

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the desirability of providing more rapid and efficient transport services between London and Gatwick Airports, he will study the possibility of a monorail service for the purpose.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: My right hon. Friend is ready to consider, in so far as his Departmental responsibilities are involved, any proposals for monorail services that may be put to him in sufficient detail.

Sir B. Janner: Why is not the Minister prepared to consider the matter without having it put to him? Is he not aware

that the monorail would really provide an answer to the appalling delays and difficulties which are experienced by people who are transported to and from Gatwick to London Airport? Will the Minister consider some kind of research in his own Department? Why wait for others? The monorail is being used elsewhere. Why cannot it be used here?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The monorail is being used elsewhere hardly at all. There is, I think, one monorail in the world, which has been in service for a great many years. In any event, our information is that there is nothing like enough traffic between these two airports to justify this form of transport.

C Licence Holders

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Transport how many C licence holders are now registered; and in respect of how many vehicles in all they hold licences.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The latest available figures show that at 31st December, 1962, there were 569,000 C licence holders in respect of 1,226,000 vehicles.

Mr. Digby: Will my hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that many of these 500,000 and more are men with small businesses who depend for their livelihood upon C licences? Will he approach the future of C licences with no preconceived ideas and approach the result of the Geddes Report in the same way and not buoy it up with any doctrinaire ideas of bolstering up the nationalised lorries, like the party opposite?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: As my hon. Friend has indicated, this is a matter on which the Geddes Committee may well make a recommendation. As to the matter being determined by doctrinaire views, I can only say that the licence holders will have an opportunity of protecting themselves against this later in the year.

Mr. Mellish: Is the Minister able to say how many C licence holders are doing A and B licence work?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I should imagine, very few indeed. We


think that there are very few breaches of that part of the regulations.

Mr. Mellish: The Minister should find out more about it.

A.4 Road, Chippenham (Abnormal Load)

Mr. Awdry: asked the Minister of Transport whether he authorised a journey along the A.4 of a prefabricated cylinder having an overall length of over 120 feet which passed through Chippenham on its market day, Friday 29th May, causing widespread congestion and inconvenience.

Mr. Marples: I approved the journey. The date and timing were matters for the haulier and the police.

Mr. Awdry: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this gigantic load caused havoc in Chippenham? Will he ensure that in future these very heavy loads go by sea?

Mr. Marples: The difficulty in this case was that the journey by sea was expensive and, if the load had gone by sea, it is likely that a manufacturer in another country would have got the order and not this particular manufacturer.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Is the Minister aware that traffic conditions in Wiltshire will get steadily worse until he gets on with building the M.4 and stops closing local railway lines? In view of the congestion, will he veto the suggestion of the Railways Board to close intermediate stations between Swindon and Gloucester, particularly in view of the recently published South-East Study, under which it is planned to expand Swindon to a town of 250,000?

Mr. Marples: I shall not go into the merits of any individual closure until the proposal has been examined in great detail. Rail closures do not affect this case, because this load could not have gone by rail anyhow; it was too large.
Deciding the line of M.4 has not been an easy task, and if the people in Wiltshire had been a little more accommodating we should have got on with it a little more quickly.

Channel Tunnel (Geological Survey)

Sir W. Teeling: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the position concerning the Channel Tunnel as at the end of June; and what arrangements have been made about financing the geological study.

Mr. Marples: With permission, I should like to answer this Question at the end of Questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Main Line Stations (Car Parks)

Mr. Worsley: asked the Minister of Transport how many main line stations have car-parking facilities provided by the Railways Board; and how many new car parks of this type have been provided in the past five years.

Mr. Galbraith: The Railways Board tells us that 784 of the main line stations have car parks provided by British Railways; 27,075 parking spaces are available at these. Thirty-two of these parks, providing 1,428 parking spaces, were established within the five years up to April, 1964. During the same period existing car parks at about 130 stations, including main line stations, were enlarged, providing accommodation for some 4,800 cars.

Mr. Worsley: Is my hon. Friend aware that this considerable improvement which he records seems to have missed out both the West Riding of Yorkshire and the London stations serving it? Will he point out to the Railways Board that nothing would do more to bring back traffic to the railways than adequate parking facilities at main line stations?

Mr. Galbraith: As I am sure my hon. Friend appreciates, this is a management matter for the Railways Board. But I have no doubt that it will pay attention to what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Worsley: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will issue a general direction, in the public interest, to the British Railways Board to provide adequate car parking facilities next to all major railway stations.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir. It is for the Board to decide, as a matter of management, where car parks might be provided and whether provision would be justified. I have no reason to doubt that the Board is giving due attention to this matter.

Mr. Worsley: Will my right hon. Friend himself impress upon the Board the tremendous importance of this provision, if he does not think it right to give a general direction?

Mr. Marples: I know that the Board is aware of the problem. In certain places in the last five years it has provided an extra 56 parks, dealing with several thousand motor cars. Where this is possible the Board will do it. But I believe that it is a matter for each local authority to try to decide the extent and distribution of car parks in its area. It is better to deal with an area as a whole and to co-ordinate it with the Railways Board.

August Bank Holiday (Services)

Mr. Miscampbell: asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the proposed experiment of moving August Bank Holiday, if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the British Railways Board to give consideration to the provision of public transport facilities on the first and last Mondays in August 1965 and 1966.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir. I have no doubt that British Railways will do all that is necessary about providing the services for which they are responsible.

Mr. Miscampbell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that assurance. Will he bear in mind that at a number of resorts, such as Blackpool, holidays generally will have been taken before August, and it seems likely that people will continue to take the traditional holiday which will include the first Monday in August?

Mr. Marples: It is not for me to bear that in mind but for the Railways Board. It is a question of management. It will estimate the number of trains required for a particular date and during the revised August Bank Holiday supply the correct number of trains to meet the demand.

Proposed Closure, Elgin-Lossiemouth Line

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport in view of the errors, details of which have been sent to him, made in the figures produced by the British Railways Board with regard to the proposal to close the Elgin-Lossiemouth line, if he will reconsider his agreement to the closure.

Mr. Galbraith: My right hon. Friend has received no such details and he sees no need to review his decision.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister get in touch with the Postmaster-General to find out what is wrong with the postal service? Is he aware that I posted the letter to him and it is very important that he should understand these figures which affect large areas of Aberdeenshire, the City of Aberdeen and trade, industry, commerce and employment in that area? Will he get in touch with his fellow Ministers with a view to rectifying this shocking failure on the part of his Ministry?

Mr. Galbraith: I object to the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that. There has been no shocking failure on the part of my right hon. Friend or myself. Nor can I see how what happens to the railway between Elgin and Lossiemouth can have any effect at all on the City of Aberdeen.

Disused Railway Lines

Mr. Pounder: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the Railways Board to prevent disused railway lines from becoming unsightly and overgrown with weeds.

Mr. Galbraith: No, Sir. The Railways Board is subject to the normal legislation governing owners of vacant land.

Mr. Pounder: While not asking my right hon. Friend to convert these tracks into rhododendron glades or anything like that, may I ask if nothing can be done in this respect because the state of many of the railways tracks makes a nonsense of the notice "Keep Britain Tidy" and encourages litter louts, which


is something we all deplore? Can nothing be done to encourage the Board to take this matter more seriously and to prevent weeds growing and buildings continuing to decay?

Mr. Galbraith: Local authorities have adequate powers to deal with nuisance on vacant land which is injurious both to health and amenity. I do not see why railway vacant land should be dealt with differently from other vacant land. I hope that what my hon. Friend has said will be noted by the local authorities.

Stations, North Staffordshire (Modernisation)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Transport what applications for capital investment have now been made to him for the modernisation of Stoke-on-Trent station; for what other stations of the North Staffordshire railway line similar applications have been made; and what information he has been given about expected completion dates.

Mr. Marples: The British Railways Board has not put to me specific proposals for capital investment at stations on this line. But I understand that, within the Board's general investment programmes, improvements have been carried out at a number of stations, and others are planned for completion between now and the end of 1965. The works proposed at Stoke station will be completed during 1965.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Does that also include the electrification of the line between Stoke and Crewe? Is the Minister aware that those of us who have worked on electrical equipment to be supplied all over the world are now getting satisfaction that, thanks to nationalisation, Britain's railways are being electrified and brought up to the maximum efficiency?

Mr. Marples: I would not go the whole way in agreeing with the hon. Member's supplementary question. There is a lot of work connected with electrification, the lengthening of platforms, track remodelling, relighting, signalling works, and so on, costing about £1¾ million; and there is no doubt that quite a sum of money is being spent in this area.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Foreign Shipbuilders (Subsidies)

Mr. McMaster: asked the Minister of Transport (1) what information he has obtained regarding the reduction in the past 12 months in the level of subsidies, direct and indirect, paid to foreign shipbuilders by their respective Governments;

(2) what change there has been in the last 12 months in the amount of subsidies paid by foreign Governments to assist their shipbuilding industries; and how this has affected the international competitiveness of British shipyards.

Mr. Marples: There have been no significant changes in subsidies paid in major shipbuilding countries in the past 12 months.

Mr. McMaster: Is my right hon. Friend aware how welcome the Shipbuilding Credit Act has been in assisting the shipbuilding industry to meet unfair competition from abroad? Will he reconsider his decision not to extend this credit further, in view of the continuance of subsidisation abroad and the difficulties that this is bound to create in the future for our shipbuilding industry?

Mr. Marples: No, Sir. There will be no extension of that Measure. It was brought in as a once-for-all Measure, in order to give the shipbuilding industry a breathing space in which to reorganise itself and become competitive. That I hope it is doing. I know that it is considering a number of measures which, so far, it has not announced.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Is not the position today much more favourable with regard to orders placed with United Kingdom shipyards?

Mr. Marples: Yes. There has been a great improvement not only as a result of the Act but because of other circumstances. Our yards received a large number of orders in the early part of this year.

Docks, Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the need for more dry and floating


docks in Aberdeen harbour for the purposes of the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry, and that this was considered by the working party set up by Her Majesty's Government, which recommended that Her Majesty's Government should provide finance to provide more such docks; when finance will be forthcoming; and when work will begin.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I am aware that a working party was convened in 1960 to consider this matter. But it was convened by the Aberdeen Harbour Board, not by the Government, and it recommended the replacement of two pontoon docks for which the Board is responsible. The Board has not submitted to the Government any request for financial assistance for replacement of these docks.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that this is a longstanding obligation upon the Government and that the last two sentences of my Question ask when the finance will be forthcoming and when the work will begin? That is the essential part of the Question. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman answer it? This is a matter which vitally affects the trade, industry, commerce and employment, not only of the City of Aberdeen, but also of the workers in the county, as well.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: It is not for me to answer the Question. It is for the Aberdeen Harbour Board, whose responsibility it is to take the initiative in this matter. The Board is empowered, if it wishes, to borrow for these purposes. It also lies with the Board, if it wishes, to apply to the Government, but it has not done so.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Miss Herbison: On a point of order. Has the Minister of Transport asked you for permission to answer Question No. 104, Mr. Speaker? If not, but if he now asks for permission, would you give it to him, or has the right hon. Gentleman decided to keep silent on proposed railway closures until the Recess?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer for what the Minister has decided. I do

not know what he has decided, but he has not made a request to me.

Mr. Strauss: On a point of order. There are 113 Questions down to the Minister of Transport today. I believe that that is a record number for any Minister. That may or may not be a reflection of the dissatisfaction of the House at the right hon. Gentleman's conduct, but the fact remains that the House will have no further opportunity of questioning the Minister before the Recess, in August.
About 70 hon. Members are dissatisfied because they have not had Oral Answers to their Questions, and although I know that it is not your personal responsibility, Mr. Speaker, in the circumstances would it not be obviously in the interests of the House, or certainly of a large section of it, if special arrangements were made to enable hon. Members who have not been able to ask Oral Questions today to have some other opportunity to ask them before the Recess?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for recognising that it is not my personal responsibility. That involves the fact that it does not raise a point of order for me. If some rearrangement of Question Time is desired, no doubt that is a matter which could be discussed through the usual channels.

CHANNEL TUNNEL (GEOLOGICAL SURVEY)

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): With permission, I will now answer Question No. 36.
The British and French Governments have decided that the further geological survey for the Channel Tunnel should begin this summer. Arrangements are being made for the Channel Tunnel Study Group to conduct the survey on an agency basis under the general supervision of the British and French Governments, who are to appoint a Joint Commission of Surveillance for this purpose. Half the cost will be met by Her Majesty's Government and half by the French Railways which, at the instance of the French Government, are participating in the contractual arrangements with the Study Group for this purpose.
The survey is expected to cost about £1¼ million. I shall shortly be asking the House to make provision for the British share by way of Supplementary Estimate. Meanwhile, any expenditure on the British side would fall to be met by an advance from the Civil Contingencies Fund. The survey arrangements are entirely without prejudice to decisions yet to be made by the British and French Governments on the organisation and financing of the Channel Tunnel project; but the present intention of both Governments is that eventually, the cost of the survey shall be charged to whatever organisation may be set up for the tunnel itself.
Copies of the texts of an exchange of notes between the British and French Governments on these matters will be placed in the Library of the House.

Sir W. Teeling: Is my right hon. Friend aware how pleased everybody will be at the success so far achieved—

Mr. Ellis Smith: Not the people in the North.

Sir W. Teeling: —how pleased everybody who is keen on the idea will be at the success that he has so far achieved in the negotiations and discussions with the French Government and also at the fact that my right hon. Friend should have given the work for the time being to the Channel Tunnel Study Group, which has spent much money, energy and risk in the past on this matter?
However, since my right hon. Friend told us when he last spoke on this subject that there was quite a possibility that private enterprise and the Study Group would not be allowed to have anything to do with this, will he give the reasons why the Group is now being allowed to deal with it for the time being?

Mr. Marples: I am grateful for the way in which my hon. Friend received my statement and to the Channel Tunnel Study Group, which carried out the first feasibility borings of the soil. That Group has the "know-how" to continue with this trial bore, which is now wanted because the previous one was a feasibility study while this one is necessary to decide what line the tunnel should take and whether it will be an immersed of

a bored tunnel. We gave it to the Group for that reason. The Group has compiled a list of international contractors, in consultation with its advisers, and has put the survey out to tender. We must get on with this work as quickly as possible. This is the first of many studies which will have to be undertaken before the tunnel is built.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Can the Minister say what is the best season in which to make this survey and whether the survey will cover the possible route for a tunnel in the form of an immersed tube?

Mr. Marples: The answer to the second part of that supplementary question is "Yes". The answer to the first part is that, naturally, all civil engineering work is better done in the summer than in the winter. That is why we have done our best to get the majority of the work, which these international contractors may have to do, done in the summer.

Mr. N. Pannell: May I repeat the request I have made before, that before the Government are irrevocably committed to this scheme there should be a full debate in the House? Is this not a matter of sufficient controversy and magnitude to justify a full debate, so that all views may be expressed on this very important project?

Mr. Marples: That could well follow this survey, but I will convey my hon. Friend's idea to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. Snow: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to give an undertaking that when the contract is eventually placed it will go to a British engineering firm and not to an American one, which, it is understood, is already trying to "muscle in" on this?

Mr. Marples: We are quite a long way from that stage, but at this stage I do not think that I should give such an undertaking.

Mr. Costain: My constituents will welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. Will he give an assurance that this survey will proceed with the minimum of delay, since it is already late, seasonally, in being put into operation?

Mr. Marples: There will be no delay at all. It will start as soon as they have assessed the merits of the tenders. I am glad that my hon. Friend's constituents will be pleased.

Mr. Ross: Did I understand the Minister to say that he will consult one of his colleagues about whether or not a debate should take place in the House? How does he propose to get a Supplementary Estimate of £1¼ million without the consent of the House?

Mr. Marples: That is a different matter. My hon. Friend asked for a general debate on the merits

Mr. Lubbock: While my hon. Friends and I are pleased to hear that some progress is to be made on this project, may I ask the Minister to let us have more information about the make-up of the £1¼ million, because it sounds rather a lot for a purely preparatory geological survey?

Mr. Marples: I can assure the hon. Member that a great number of technical considerations must be taken into account in an undertaking of such magnitude as this to find out what the soil is like under the Channel and to make certain that there is no fault in the line chosen for the tunnel.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I recognise that there are many technical questions to be considered, but would it not be reasonable for the Minister to let the House have a White Paper before he asks for this money, so that we may debate the matter properly?

Mr. Marples: As I say, I will ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House whether time can be provided for a debate.

BILL PRESENTED

ZAMBIA INDEPENDENCE

Bill to make provision for, and in connection with, the establishment of Northern Rhodesia, under the name of Zambia, as an independent republic within the Commonwealth, presented by Mr. Sandys; supported by Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, The Attorney General, and Mr. Tilney; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 179.]

PRIVATE MEMBER'S BILL

Mr. Monslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask, through you, why the Motion of the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) for a Bill to deal with immigration has not been moved? Is it as a result of an order from the Tory Whips? Is the hon. Member making sure of a baronetcy in the Dissolution Honours List?

Mr. Speaker: I do not, for the moment, understand what point of order arises. Perhaps the hon. Member wishes to explain himself further.

Mr. A. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that for over a week there has been on the Order Paper a notice that a Bill would be presented today. Some of my hon. Friends from the North had arranged important meetings in their constituences, which they cancelled. Last night, many of them came back by sleeper train only to find, at the last moment—[Laughter.] This is not a laughing matter—that the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) had withdrawn his Motion.
May I ask you, Sir, whether, in future, if such a thing as this is to be done, Members may be given some idea, perhaps the night before, that the Bill is not to be proceeded with? Could it be arranged, with your help and assistance, that, as with notices of what Amendments, and so on, are to be called, a notice is put on the board in the Division Lobby the previous evening advising hon. Members that a Bill has been withdrawn? That would save the inconvenience that many of my hon. Friends have suffered today.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would prefer to deal with this point first.
It would not be within my power to deprive an hon. Member of the right to withdraw a Bill up to the last moment of time. I could not change the rule about that. I regret when inconvenience occurs to hon. Members in any way.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I may draw the attention of the hon


Member opposite to the fact that any hon. Member who took the trouble to read the Order Book of the House last Monday would have seen that my hon. Friend's, notice of Motion had already been withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful, but I am not an enthusiast of the practice of passing information from one hon. Member to another across the Floor of the House through the person of the Chair. It creates inconvenience.

Orders of the Day — DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

3.42 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Robert Mathew): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill gives effect to those provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which relate to legal privileges and immunities. It will enable us to ratify that Convention, and will also, for the first time, provide a comprehensive code of diplomatic privileges and immunities in this country.
The main provisions of the Bill are in Clauses 1 and 2, which provide for the replacement of the existing law and the application of the relevant articles of the Vienna Convention. The other Clauses of the Bill make changes in our law that are, broadly speaking, consequential. The Bill provides a single statement of the relevant rules, and does this on the basis of the Vienna Convention. The rules to be applied will be the rules of the Convention itself. For the greater part, these rules will be the same as those now applying in our law or practice, but there will be some changes. But the tendency of the Bill is to reduce the extent of immunities from our jurisdiction, while making comparatively minor changes in privileges.
The Convention was the result of studies and proposals made by the International Law Commission of the United Nations. The Commission was established under a Resolution of the United Nations General Assembly of November, 1947, and chose as one of its first topics a study of the law of diplomatic relations. The Commission appointed a rapporteur, who made an exhaustive study of existing law and practice, and in 1958 the Commission adopted draft Articles for a Convention that were then submitted to Governments for their comment.
In 1961, a conference of 81 countries assembled in Vienna under the auspices of the United Nations, and considered the draft Articles and the comments and proposals of Governments. On 14th April, 1961, the conference adopted the


Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. That Convention came into force on 24th April of this year, and 28 States are now parties to it. It is worth stressing that this work was achieved through the United Nations.
International law governing diplomatic relations developed through many centuries of the practice of States. Out of this practice, rules of law developed, but on many matters there were significant differences of practice. In such cases, it was never easy to say with certainty what international law required. Numerous attempts to resolve these differences and reduce the mass of practice to coherent rules have been made.
That the rules of international law on diplomatic relations are now to be found in a concise formulation is thanks in large measure to the machinery for study and discussion within the United Nations, as well as to the spirit of co-operation and compromise which the United Nations can engender. There is now every prospect that the Convention will achieve universal acceptance by the nations of the world. Her Majesty's Government have consistently supported the work of the United Nations in the sphere of international law, and we are now glad to be able to welcome this Convention as one of its most valuable contributions to the development of the international rule of law.
As I have said, there were many points on which the Vienna Convention had to resolve differences of State practice. The decisions adopted by the conference were in some cases in favour of a practice and a view of international law that has not been that of the British Government. As a result, certain changes in our law will follow from the ratification of the Convention and the passing of the Bill.
The most significant changes are in relation to immunity from suit and legal process. The key to any consideration of the whole problem of diplomatic privileges and immunities is the need to strike the right balance between our interests as a receiving State and our interests as a sending State. As a receiving State, we clearly have an interest in reducing to a minimum the extent to which any persons physically present in our country enjoy exceptional treatment. But, as a sending State, we have an equally clear interest in ensuring that those to whom

we entrust the task of representing the United Kingdom abroad have the status and the protection that will enable them to perform that task.
Under existing United Kingdom law, all members of a diplomatic mission, together with the private servants of the head of mission, enjoy complete immunity from every kind of suit and legal process both in respect of their official acts and in respect of their private acts. This means that a diplomat cannot be subject to legal proceedings in any circumstances unless his head of mission considers that there is a case for the waiver of the immunity.
Under the Convention and the Bill, this position will be changed, and significantly changed. For the first time, members of a mission will be divided into several categories, with differing privileges and immunities. Only the so-called "diplomatic agent"—the head of mission and the diplomatic staff—will continue to enjoy the full immunity which I have described, but even then the immunity will be subject to three exceptions under Article 31(1) of the Convention.
Members of the "administrative and technical staff"—such people as typists, wireless operators and archivists—will enjoy complete immunity only for their official acts. For their private acts they will have immunity only from criminal jurisdiction. Members of the "service staff"—the domestic staff of the mission will have complete immunity only in relation to their official acts. For their non-official acts they will have no immunity from either civil or criminal jurisdiction. These are significant changes. The immunities of about 4,000 people will be affected.
I should like to mention Article 38 of the Convention in Schedule 1 to the Bill. At present, United Kingdom citizens on the staff of foreign diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom enjoy immunity from suit in respect of their official acts. This is a result of the Diplomatic Immunities Restriction Act, 1955. Under the Convention and the Bill, this will remain the position only in relation to heads of mission and members of the diplomatic staff. For all other ranks there will be no immunity at all under the Bill, unless such immunity be granted by Order in Council under Clause 2(6).


In addition, for the first time, the same limitations will apply to permanent residents as well. Hitherto, there has been no discrimination against permanent residents.
These are important changes, but at once they lead us to ask the question: are they consistent with our needs as a sending State? Are we, in accepting them, jeopardising the position of our representatives abroad and hence the interests of Her Majesty's Government? The Convention contains a provision in Article 47(2,b) under which it is open to States to accord to each other on the basis of custom or agreement better treatment than that called for by the Convention.
Under this Article, it would be open for us, for example, to agree with another State to complete the immunity of the administrative and technical staff of our respective missions or to remove the exceptions to the immunity contained in Article 31. We have had to decide whether to make use of this provision and to include in the Bill a general power to make agreements going beyond the Convention.
The House will appreciate that this has not been an easy decision to take. In the end, we have thought it right not to seek such a power and, with two exceptions, to accept the Convention as striking the right balance. These two exceptions are reflected in Clause 7. They are both cases where we have existing arrangements going beyond the Convention which we simply cannot terminate unilaterally even should we wish to do so.
The first relates to the immunity from jurisdiction of the subordinate staff. This is contained in Clause 7(1,a). When the power was conferred by the Diplomatic Immunities Restriction Act, 1955, to withdraw immunities from the representatives of foreign countries which were not according to our representatives the degree of immunity available under our law, we had to discover the countries in respect of which the power should be exercised. In doing so, we were able to come to arrangements with certain countries which also had a rule of reciprocity.
Under these arrangements one country assures the other that the subordinate staff of the mission will enjoy the full

immunity from jurisdiction. These arrangements were made with about four countries where we were keenly concerned to have this kind of protection for our own staff. I am sure that the House will not expect me to elaborate on the security aspects of the immunity from jurisdiction of persons connected with our missions abroad.
I will merely say that it is quite clear that the threat of legal proceedings, in other words, blackmail, is a weapon which can be and is used to subvert members of diplomatic missions in some countries. The vital protection which we must have is to be able to assure every member of the staff of our mission in these countries that threats of legal proceedings can be ignored and that in no circumstances can such a threat be carried out without the consent of the head of mission.

Clause 7 will allow the full immunity to continue in relation to a very limited number of countries. Their names will be published in connection with subsection (2) as soon as we have had time to consult the countries concerned. I stress that there is no question of concluding any further arrangements, indeed the Clause as drafted would not allow for new arrangements. It is merely a question of honouring those we already have.

Clause 7(1,b) would continue certain arrangements which we have already under which administrative and technical staff of the mission enjoy the same Customs exemption as the diplomatic staff. Under Article 27 of the Convention, in Schedule 1, administrative and technical staff will enjoy Customs exemption only in respect of articles imported at the time when they first take up their posts, whereas the diplomatic staff, under Article 36(1), enjoy Customs exemption throughout their tour of duty. We have arrangements with nine countries giving the more extensive exemption, and, here again, we cannot terminate them at will. We have to consult the countries concerned, particularly because the arrangements in some cases, at the request of other countries, have been confidential. In due course their names will be published in accordance with Clause 7(2).

I should now like to turn to a matter which has occupied a good deal of the


attention of the House at various times in the past, namely, motoring offences by persons entitled to diplomatic immunity. The changes made by the Bill in the immunities of the subordinate staffs of missions will have an effect on the problem. Members of the administrative and technical staffs will become liable to civil proceedings in respect of claims arising out of off-duty accidents. Members of the service staff will be liable to both civil and criminal proceedings in respect of off-duty accidents or offences. This means, for example, that an Embassy chauffeur will not be able to plead any immunity when he is not acting in the course of his duties.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Who decides this? Let us suppose that I am knocked down by a gentleman who is an assistant cook, or whose wife is an assistant cook, employed by the Ruritanian Embassy? How do I establish that he is off duty?

Mr. Mathew: Surely, if the hon. Member found himself in that position and the servant of the embassy pleaded immunity, this would be a matter for the head of mission. He knows whether the man was on duty at that time or was off duty. I am taking a case where there is no other evidence I suggest that in a number of these motoring cases it might well be perfectly obvious whether the servant was on or off duty at that moment.

Mr. Hale: I agree, but suppose that the head of mission gives a certificate and says, "You were knocked down on the beach at Skegness by a gentleman driving a car off the road. He was on his way to cook a dinner for the Ambassador at Newcastle-on-Tyne and, therefore, was on duty"? This is not so far from some of the things that have occurred.

Mr. Mathew: The hon. Member has experience in the courts and knows that this is a matter of evidence. It must depend on all the circumstances and the evidence available at the time. Any prospective plaintiff, in bringing a case against a defendant, is in this position. He must have the evidence, and the onus is on the defence in this case to plead an immunity. It will have to be proved, and

surely, in most cases, there will be a number of facts in the possession of the prospective plaintiff.

Mr. Hale: This is important. We ought to get it clear. The question which I am asking is this: if a certificate is given by the head of a mission, is that binding on any tribunal in Britain or is the tribunal entitled to go behind the certificate and to question its accuracy, validity and honesty—and, if so, how?

Mr. Mathew: Is the case any different from any ordinary running down case? A policeman appears or is sent for, and it does not matter whether there is a C.D. plate on the car or not, because that has no legal validity. If the person concerned pleads immunity, then it is for the police to find out whether he is entitled to immunity. The test of immunity surely would be the same as before—either he was entitled to it or he was not. If he were on duty, then he was entitled to it; and, if not, then he was not entitled to it. Surely this is a matter in which it should not be beyond the wit of our legal machinery to discover the answer. If he held out improperly and wrongly and against the facts that he was entitled to immunity, I do not think that there would be much difficulty in refuting that case.
Members of the service staff will be liable to both civil and criminal proceedings in respect of off-duty accidents or offences. This means that an embassy chauffeur will not be able to plead any immunity when he is not acting in the course of his duties. This should help to remove a good deal of the room for irritation and misunderstandings which at present exist in this field. However, it is true that for on-duty offences and accidents there will still be cases in which diplomatic immunity can be and will be claimed.
In a recent Adjournment debate I told the House of the new procedures which the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office have recently adopted to try to reduce the extent of this problem. The police are now forwarding to the Foreign Office weekly tables of traffic incidents involving persons claiming diplomatic immunity. It is the intention of the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office to


bring these to the attention of the missions concerned. In addition, I can say that the doyen of the Diplomatic Corps in London is taking a personal interest in the problem and has brought to the attention of heads of missions the obligation which diplomats are under to obey the laws and regulations of the United Kingdom, whether or not they can be enforced against them.
Steps are being taken to ensure that missions have available to them adequate parking facilities so that the cause of some of the difficulties may be removed. I assure the House that we have this problem of diplomatic motoring offences and incidents under close and constant scrutiny and that we are not at all unhopeful that it will be solved by good sense and restraint on the part of all concerned.
I want to refer to one or two points of detail in the Bill. It may be useful if I say something about exemption from local rates. Embassies and certain members of their staffs have enjoyed for over 70 years a partial relief from local rates. The Treasury at present accepts liability for that part of the general rate which is of no direct benefit to the embassy or the diplomat concerned. The so-called beneficial portion of the rate is paid by the embassy or the diplomat. This relief is at present given in one of two ways. Either the Treasury pays the full rate to the local authority and then recovers the beneficial portion from the embassy, or from the diplomat or else the embassy or the diplomat pays the full rate and recovers the non-beneficial portion from the Treasury.
Under the Convention and the Bill, embassies and the official residences of diplomats will have a legal exemption from rates to much the same extent as the relief which they enjoy at present. Since it is a legal exemption, it is intended to adopt in all cases the first of the two procedures which I have described, and in future the Treasury will pay the full rate and will recover the beneficial portion from the embassy or the diplomat concerned. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government have been in touch with the representatives of local authorities, who have welcomed the considerable simplification in procedure which is proposed.
The only other provision which I will mention at this stage is Clause 3, which gives power to withdraw privileges and immunities from a mission when the sending State is failing to accord to our mission in its territory the privileges and immunities conferred by the Act. This power replaces the similar powers in the Diplomatic Immunities Restriction Act, 1955, in relation to foreign missions and the Diplomatic Immunities (Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland) Act, 1952, in relation to Commonwealth missions.
This is a simple Bill. Its twin objects are to bring both certainty and uniformity into the law on diplomatic relations. I have attempted to explain the main provisions of the Bill. Hon. Members may well wish to raise other points of detail and, if the House grants me permission, I shall be happy to deal later in the debate with such points. I submit that the Bill, by enabling the Government to ratify the Vienna Convention, is a real step forward towards the codification of an important branch of international law. For all the reasons which I have given, I commend the Bill to the House.

4.7 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: With a great deal of what the Minister said when he was sketching the background to the Bill I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree. It is a step forward in the codification and expression in clearish—I will not say clear—terms of certain basic and vital principles of international law. As far as we can understand it, we shall know that the privileges to be accorded to diplomatic envoys are those which are described in language, which is not pellucid in form but comparatively so, contained in the articles set out in the Schedule to the Bill.
I think that the whole House would wish me to pay tribute to the International Law Commission and would welcome an effort, under the auspices of the United Nations, tending to the codification of international law, because this will tend to the improvement and maintenance of the stability of international relations between states as far as it goes.
Having said that and having expressed agreement with those sentiments which


came from the Minister about the background to the Bill, I should like to begin to examine its content. The Bill deals with the result of discussions and agreements at the Vienna Convention. Under Clause 8, I notice that the Bill proceeds to go outside the limits of that Convention and to deal with a different topic. I refer to the State of Southern Rhodesia, as it is described in the Bill. The first point which I want to put to the Minister arises on Clause 8(2), which reads:
This Act shall be construed as if Southern Rhodesia were a State".
That provision was explained by Lord Carrington, when he was speaking on behalf of the Government in another place, as a provision which was necessary to prevent Southern Rhodesia from losing diplomatic privileges which her envoys at present enjoy under the provisions of the Diplomatic Immunities (Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland) Act, 1952. I can well understand it if the Government feel that it would be wrong to deprive Southern Rhodesia of existing privileges which are accorded to representatives from Southern Rhodesia. I cannot help feeling, however, that the language chosen is not particularly felicitous at present, when we read not infrequently in the Press of the possibility, indeed more than the possibility, of a unilateral declaration of independence by the Southern Rhodesian Government who are in power at the moment.
That being the situation it seems to me not altogether happy to choose language which is so expressed as to equate Southern Rhodesia in the fullest sense with a sovereign independent country such as Western Germany or France or any other sovereign country. If language is to be inserted into the Bill to preserve the rights of Southern Rhodesia, that is one thing, and I should not oppose it. But I put it to the Minister that it is quite unnecessary to make any reference to Southern Rhodesia at all.
The Bill does not as I read it, take any privileges away from Southern Rhodesia. The privileges which Southern Rhodesia at present enjoys are, so far as I understand it from the wording of the Bill, completely and wholly untouched. It seems to me, therefore, to

be quite unnecessary to embark upon the use of the language in Clause 8, which, as I say, has an unfortunate connotation, particularly in present circumstances.
The scope of the Bill is defined in Clause 1 as being designed to substitute the provisions contained in it as to diplomatic immunity in the existing law
with respect to the matters dealt with therein.
"Therein" means, by the Bill, that is the diplomatic relations between States, as I understand it, which are parties or become parties to the machinery of the Vienna Convention, and those States are set out in the Schedule—there are 81 of them—and Southern Rhodesia is certainly not included as a State; and as I read the provisions of the Bill it could have no effect on the existing status of Southern Rhodesia so far as diplomatic immunity is concerned.
I really would ask the Government to look closely at that matter. It is a subject on which one must naturally, speak with great restraint and care in view of the somewhat tense situation at the moment, and I say no more about it, but I do ask the Government to consider whether it is necessary to insert that language or any language of the sort.
Having made that general point I accept that what we are doing now is deciding whether or not we approve what the Government spokesman in another place described as a package deal. No doubt, our representatives in the course of the discussions in Vienna would have preferred some arrangements in some respects different from those which appear in the Convention, and in other respects, no doubt, felt well satisfied with what the Convention provides. We are asked to approve the package deal before the House. The question before the House is not whether we can alter the Convention, but whether we accept it or reject it as a whole, and that is what the Minister was inviting the House to do.
Speaking for myself, I hope that the House will certainly decide that it ought to be accepted. It ought to be accepted as a step forward in the endeavour to do what we must constantly apply ourselves to trying to do, as I said, to codify in practice by intelligible law the relations which should subsist between


independent sovereign States. I think that this Convention, with its imperfections—I certainly think that it has imperfections—goes some way in codifying and cementing those relationships.
I think that, nevertheless, if we do register our vote in favour of approving this Convention, we should bear in mind what it is we are doing. Fundamentally, in this country we are, I think quite rightly, very much against the idea of there being people here who are above the law. We do not like it. It goes against our instinct. We like to think of every person in this country as being amenable to the jurisdiction of our courts. It is a natural and, I think the House and people outside the House will agree, a proper instinct.
What we are doing is deciding to approve, if we do so decide, a Convention which nevertheless preserves extremely wide immunities from the law for members of the staffs of diplomatic missions of foreign sovereign States. They are really extremely wide. I accept from the Minister that they are, by the terms of the Convention, to some extent narrowed from what they were before. The pre-existing diplomatic immunities are of long standing in this country. I think that they began with the Diplomatic Privileges Act, 1708. Indeed, they were in a less coherent form long before that, centuries before. Since then there has been a mass of common law on the subject. As they existed before, or rather, as they exist at the moment, before the Bill is passed, they are extremely extensive. As I have said, they are to some extent reduced as operated by this Convention. Nevertheless, they are extremely wide.
What the Bill, or rather the Convention which is annexed to the Bill, or the relevant parts of it which are annexed to the Bill, does is to divide the members of the diplomatic staffs into three categories. They are now those who are described in the text of the Schedule as diplomatic agents; or they are members of the staff engaged, as the Minister said, in technical, administrative duties—typists, translators, telegraph operators, and so on. Thirdly, they are, in effect, domestic staff of the embassy concerned. I think we ought just to look and see what the Bill will preserve

by way of privilege to be accorded to these three separate categories.
To start off which, I should have thought that we would have had no quarrel with Article 22, which provides that the premises of the mission itself should be inviolate. We would accept that. Similarly, I should have thought that we would have accepted complete immunity preserved by Article 23 for the sending State and perhaps for the head of the mission himself.
While I do not say that we are cutting any new ground, still, when we look at the "diplomatic agent", we are in an area which is uncharted in extent. If we look at the matter de novo, starting from the beginning, and consider the "diplomatic agent" we see that he is simply described in the Schedule as a person who is entitled to diplomatic privilege. In the Bill there is no definition of the diplomatic agent apart from this. So presumably he is the person who one supposes the head of the mission designates, and who is accepted by the British Government, as being of the status of a diplomatic agent. He enjoys complete immunity from criminal process and, apart from what are really minor, unimportant exceptions, has complete immunity from civil process.
Theoretically, whether on duty or off duty he can commit any crime he likes—

Mr. Hale: His family.

Sir F. Soskice: I was just going on to say that I agree.

Sir Robert Cary: And he can park his car where he likes.

Sir F. Soskice: Park his car where he likes? There are far worse things that he can do. I am not one of those who assume that ex hypothesi he will be a person who will lurk about the streets, looking for opportunities to commit crimes. I think that that is silly. However, theoretically—and although it is theoretical it can have practical application under operation of the law—he can commit any crime that he likes, when he likes, where he likes, against whom he likes. This really is going a long way.
Equally, he can commit any civil wrong. He can break a contract if he wants to, again, with these unimportant exceptions. He need not give any evidence in any court if he does not want to, and judgment can only be enforced against him, if it is obtained, in the event of his immunity being waived for that purpose. That is under Article 32. Suppose that the head of a mission waives for the diplomatic agent his immunity in respect of any particular civil process, suppose he commits a civil wrong—he slanders someone, or attacks or assaults someone.
Suppose that the head of the mission waives the immunity for process against him. If he loses, a judgment can only be enforced against him if there is an express and separate waiver—before anyone can enforce judgment against him. It really is a case of "Heads I win, tails you lose". If he wins he could enforce an order for his costs against the unsuccessful plaintiff. But if he loses and there is an order for damages against him he can say to the successful plaintiff, "Try to get the money out of me. You will not." Unless there is a separate and express waiver, judgment cannot be enforced against him. That is going a long way.
Then there is the same immunity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) reminded me, and as I was going on to say, for members of his family, what are called the members of his family, forming part of his household. So long as they can be said to be living with him and forming part of his household they can equally go round committing any crime—or doing any wrong—although I know perfectly well that in the vast majority of cases they will not.
Article 37 deals with the position of the administrative and technical staff. They and the members of their family forming part of their household have the same immunity, subject only to this that in the case of civil jurisdiction, but not criminal jurisdiction, their immunity does not extend to acts which they do not do in the performance of their duty. In respect of criminal jurisdiction they also have the complete immunity available to diplomatic agents. Then one gets the service staff, who have criminal and civil

immunity except in the case of acts outside the scope of their service. That is very wide.
We are accepting or rejecting the agreement as a whole. We must not get an unrealistic idea about the problem we are discussing. It would be exaggerating and absurd to suppose that this country is half-full of diplomatic envoys roaming the streets and buildings looking for opportunities to commit every sort of crime. That is nonsense. Nobody asks the House to consider the Bill on that footing. But in the matter particularly of motoring offences the effect of the immunity causes considerable irritation to the public, especially in regard to parking offences. I was glad to hear the procedure the Minister outlined as being that which would be applicable. It is to be hoped that the members of all the missions in this country, 81, will respond and co-operate when the matter is brought to their notice in accordance with the procedure which the Minister outlined.
I have ascertained the number of people whom we are considering. Quoting from Lord Carrington's speech in another place, the total number of staff of missions is now 5,039, and when the Bill becomes an Act the diplomatic agents with complete immunity will number 1,439; administrative and technical staff with almost complete immunity will number 2,794 and service staff with the more qualified immunity will number 552.
Obviously, in 1964 it would be ludicrous to say that we can do without this immunity. We have to afford in our country the same sort of immunity to foreign envoys as we claim for our envoys in foreign countries. That is obvious. It is impossible for us to expect our envoys to work in a number of the places where they now work if they are potentially subject to what the Minister described in graphic language as blackmail, though I do not think that anyone would say that his language was over-coloured in that respect.
We cannot, as yet, always have the same confidence in the courts of all other countries as we should like to have. No doubt the time may come when no member of a staff or his family will be at risk in having to work in such countries, but that time is not yet. Therefore, we have to accept that we must give that immunity which we would expect in other countries.
I therefore hope that the House will agree to accept the Bill as it is. It gives effect to a Convention which has its weaknesses, but, nevertheless, provides for what is an absolute necessity at present if our representation through our missions is to be conducted effectively without fear of hindrance and without anxiety on the part of those persons whom we send abroad and their families lest they should be in any way made victims or subjected to unfair processes in foreign courts. On that understanding, and provided that it is clearly recognised that there are defects which we cannot help, and which we should perhaps be able to eradicate and would eradicate if we had a completely free hand, I hope that we shall agree to give the Bill a Second Reading.

4.25 p.m.

Commander Anthony Courtney: I have very great sympathy with the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), almost in their entirety. But, like him, I would dwell for a moment on the defects in the Bill, which is, after all, giving the force of law in this country to an international Convention which was signed by this country's representatives three years ago.
The first question that I should like to ask is why it is that during these three years Her Majesty's Government have not seen fit to bring the Bill before the House. Only now, when 22 nations have ratified the Convention, when it, therefore, becomes law internationally, is it brought before the House. We are entitled to know why the delay has occurred.
As pointed out by the right hon. and learned Member, the reduction of diplomatic immunity and privilege which will result in this country from the Bill is evident and considerable. It highlights the lavishness of the diplomatic hospitality which we have afforded to foreign missions over the years. Now that 81 nations have got together and agreed on a certain scale of diplomatic privilege and immunity, we find that our own scale actually operating at the time is very much higher than that, and it will, therefore, be reduced considerably by the Bill.
I want to make a few remarks about the relationship of the Bill to the Convention

of three years ago to which it gives the force of law. Schedule 1 contains Articles from the Convention which will themselves be given the force of law in this country. If we are accepting the Convention as a whole, why is it that 35 of the 53 Articles of the Convention are omitted from the Bill? It may seem a simple drafting point. Indeed, there are some Articles which do not apply because they are simply informative and there is no question of giving them force of law, but there are clear inconsistencies of detail.
For example, the Schedule includes Article 27, which allows for the free communication of missions for all official purposes. On the other hand, it omits Article 26, which allows for freedom of movement and travel for members of diplomatic missions. I should have thought that the force of law would have been required for both Articles. I ask my hon. Friend to look at the list and perhaps include the whole outfit in the Schedule.
I draw attention to two particular aspects of the Convention. The first point I want to make is that the principle of diplomatic immunity which governs the thought behind the Convention is clearly breached in one interesting small domestic matter. Under Article 36 of the new rules it is possible for the personal luggage of a diplomatic agent to be searched if a Customs officer feels that the case which he has not declared contains, for example, more slivovitza than he could be expected to drink during his tour of duty. To put it simply, diplomats who smuggle and are bowled out can presumably be made persona non grata. The point I am making is that that breach of diplomatic immunity is enshrined in the provisions of the Convention, which is a rather interesting commentary on modern practice. Who knows?—perhaps it will be added to in another international diplomatic convention by something to do with the parking of cars.
My second point is about Article 47 of the Convention, which also does not find a place in Schedule I. Its object is to prevent discrimination. My hon. Friend has used the provisions of the Article to justify the taking of certain powers to increase privileges in respect of diplomatic immunity for four nations and customs immunities for nine nations,


nations which are not at the moment specified. I suggest that he should look at that Article closely again, when, perhaps, on rereading it, he will appreciate my own feeling about that Article, which is that it is a negative one and that only by implication does it allow nations to extend to each other more favourable treatment than is required by the provisions of the present Convention.
It would seem that in Article 47 allowance is made implicitly by those who drafted the Convention for abuse or for double standards within the Convention. It makes allowance for certain action when the provisions of the Convention are applied restrictively by any particular nation. It seems difficult to imagine how a Convention can be observed internationally while, at the same time, allowance is made within that Convention for the application of its provisions restrictively. It implies a very curious double standard of international behaviour which we ought to consider rather closely in Committee.
Now to the Bill itself. In Committee in another place my noble Friend, Lord Carrington, made two statements which seemed to me to be a shade conflicting. The first was that the Convention contains no provisions permitting reservations; in other words, one accepts the whole thing or one does not. The second was that in two respects we cannot accept the Convention as it stands. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary today that he has inserted enabling Clauses which amend the provisions of the international Convention as it is transformed into the law of this country. I suggest that this is a shade inconsistent in our thinking and that we should look more deeply into the causes of this apparent inconsistency.
The result is the new Clause 7, which increases the immunities for four nations and the customs privileges for another nine. We have not been told who these four nations are, and this is by far the most important amending point. One might think that if we wished to increase privileges for certain countries they would obviously be allies and perhaps members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, but, as was hinted by my hon. Friend, we would now say, "Oh no, that is not so." These four nations are in

fact countries in which our own diplomatic representatives experience particular difficulty and, therefore, it is necessary for us to go outside the provisions of the international Convention, which we are accepting in toto, to make special reciprocal arrangements with those four countries.
I feel—and I am sure my hon. Friend will agree with me when he looks carefully at Article 47—that this discriminatory Clause does not really permit him, within the terms of the Convention, to increase these privileges in respect of the four and nine countries respectively. But there is a third major amendment to this Convention which is being made in our own law, in Clause 3, which my hon. Friend has already mentioned and which gives the Government powers—absolutely rightly, as we would all agree—to withdraw privileges and immunities as a retaliatory act in the case of countries which have taken the initiative by doing something similar to our own representatives abroad. I mention these three amendments to the Convention because, in my view, they give a precedent for further amendment should this House consider it necessary, as it may well do on closer scrunity of the Bill.
Today, my hon. Friend said, "I will not elaborate on the security aspect" and he was, of course, referring to blackmail and the difficulties which our emissaries experience in certain countries. But no one has yet mentioned the effect on our national security, as has been proved so sadly over the last few years, of any increased widening of diplomatic privilege to the representatives of certain nations which we know have abused those privileges. In another place Lord Killearn, who, I am sure the House will agree, has longer experience in these matters than most people in this country, said that in his opinion there had been over past years a serious abuse of diplomatic immunity. I feel that that has been proved without a shadow of doubt in recent times. We have heard quite a lot about car parking, but I should like to draw attention to published proof positive of this abuse extending to questions of national security.
I refer to the security cases of Vassall, Blake, and further back to Maclean and Burgess. We have not been given much information, but we have been given


enough to establish that the revelations of these cases show the serious danger to national security which has occurred in the past and which may well continue to occur if we do nothing about it. I believe that this excellent Bill gives the House and the country the opportunity of saying quite clearly that we will not tolerate further abuses of this immunity such as have occurred in the past.
There is a precedent, as I have shown, for amendments to the law of this country in the Bill now before the House covering the provisions of the Convention, and I should like to turn for a moment, because this is a matter on which I feel somewhat strongly, to the three basic immunities of diplomatic agents which are misused in this country.
First, as the right hon. and learned Member for Newport mentioned, is inviolability of mission premises. Secondly, there is the sanctity of the mission's communications, in which is included the diplomatic bag. Thirdly, there is the immunity of the person of a diplomatic agent from arrest or detention, which presumably includes search. Those three immunities, in varying degrees, are those which have been abused for the purpose of espionage against this country, as is proved conclusively by the published reports of the last few years.
I believe that it should be the duty of this House to seek minimum powers to obtain the objective of deterring the further use of this type of espionage. We have in the Bill, and in the Convention which has been signed and which we hope will be accepted, a rather remarkable anomaly. Let us go back two years, to the case of Vassall handing documents to a diplomatic agent of a foreign Power in a public place. Had Vassall been observed—perhaps he was—by a security officer, the security officer would, under the provisions of the Bill and the Convention, have been powerless to do anything to the diplomatic agent, arrest him, detain him, search him, or anything else.
This diplomatic agent, having accomplished his task, goes to his own country on leave. He flies back, and, on his arrival at London Airport, his baggage may be searched if he is suspected of

having, as I said before, too much slivovitza. It is a remarkable commentary on our curious sense of proportion in this country and the way we have of sweeping unpleasant facts under the carpet even when national security is concerned.
I ask my hon. Friend to look again at Article 29 in conjunction with Article 3(1,d). Article 29 of the Convention, which becomes the law of this country, covers the immunity of the person of a diplomatic agent from arrest or detention. I suggest that the minimum requirement would be satisfied if we applied sanctions or restrictions, by Amendment to the Bill, to this one immunity only of the basic three which I have mentioned. The Government ought to take powers in some way to qualify Article 29 in the sense of Article 3(1,d), which refers to lawful means of acquiring information.
I am not a lawyer. I leave it to hon. and learned Members to work out how this could be done, but in my view it should be made watertight. A diplomatic agent of a foreign Power in this county should, in future, be clearly warned that he will be subject to arrest or detention if there are serious grounds for believing that he has engaged in espionage. Those are the precise words which we already apply to the duties of a Customs officer, allowing him to search the baggage of a similar diplomatic agent.
There will be strong objections to any suggestion of this kind, and I believe that they take two main lines. First—we all feel this, because we know of incidents which have occurred—there is the possibility of retaliation against our own diplomatic representatives abroad as a result of any amendments or restrictions which we put on diplomatic agents serving in this country. Surely, there is sufficient evidence—those of us who travel in these countries know it very well—that there is already operating a double standard of conduct and behaviour towards diplomats which makes nonsense of any international Convention interpreted in the right spirit.
Is not this the precise reason why my hon. Friend has to accept four countries within the terms of amendments made


by the Bill, increasing immunities and privileges so as to protect our own people in those countries? What is forgotten is that, in this way, we extend immunities and privileges to representatives of a hostile country within our own.
The second objection is a rather peculiar one, and for it I am obliged to the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus). I have warned the hon. Gentleman that I intended to raise this point, and he has apologised for his absence, saying that he is in his constituency and cannot be present today. Just over a year ago, in an Adjournment debate, the hon. Gentleman, speaking about the abuse of diplomatic privileges in the sense of breaches of national security, said:
Do not an equal number of those who are personae non gratae have to leave the respective countries in cases of espionage? Do these problems not apply to both sides and not just to one?".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1963; Vol. 682, c. 843–4.]
If the hon. Gentleman is right—he has as much right to study these matters as we all have—it must be clear by now that, if two sides are playing this kind of game, we are certainly having the worst end of the deal. Is it not time that we set aside all such possibilities and returned to base, so to speak? Ought we not to start with a clean sheet under the provisions of the international Convention as ratified by the Bill now before us?
In general, I support the Bill, but I say firmly that it is time that the House took the question of national security a good deal more seriously than, with respect, it has hitherto. We should look very carefully at the detail of possible Amendments to the Bill.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: With respect to the Under-Secretary of State—I apologise to him personally, for I have an old affection for him, by greeting him with "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes"—I think that what he said postulates the first problem that we face in dealing with the Bill. Even my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), who spoke so ably, and with whom, in the main, I was in complete agreement, talked about

exceptions to the rule being provided in the Bill. The Minister told us that even some exceptions have been added. To me, the exceptions seem to be new privileges, and they are not designed to subject an ambassador to litigation but to make it possible for him to complete his duties in relation to executorships or the ownership of freehold property—that is all—because it is obviously necessary to give him such power.
There is one really quite monstrous provision which says that a diplomatic agent may waive his immunity to process, but, even if he does that, he has not waived his immunity to judgment. He may say that he will accept the arbitrament of law and contest an issue so long as he does not lose. If he is likely to lose, we cannot enforce the judgment against him, because the law specifically provides for immunity even after judgment unless he makes a second specific act of waiver.
No one will deny—my right hon. and learned Friend put it very ably and clearly—that there is a need to protect our diplomatic agents, ambassadors or people from this country fulfilling the functions of ambassador abroad. Although conditions may have altered somewhat, I am not sure that they have wholly improved. The rule of law is very curious today in many countries, even in some Commonwealth countries.
I have always taken the view that, on the whole, I prefer not to be tried at all, but I am quite certain that there are countries in the world today in which I would very much prefer not to face a trial. It is right to remember that exposure to the threat of process under a law of increasing incertitude, a law sometimes dominated by the head of State who reserves the power to dismiss judges who do not record verdicts which he favours, can be a terrible thing, from which we ought to try to protect by every proper means those who represent us abroad.
The trouble with privileges is that they proliferate. There was a time when, in quite reasonable circumstances, Members of Parliament claimed immunity from arrest. Those who recall the picture of the five Members upstairs may well think that this was reasonable. This privilege became extended until, as Hatsell records, Members' servants were protected from


arrest. I noted a case in the seventeenth century when, a Member's servant having been arrested, the culprits were brought to the Bar of the House at once and, after much discussion, were ordered to be paraded from Westminster to the Exchange back to back—and bare-back—on a horse with a notice calling attention to their crime. It was, I think, the horse which was bare-back, not the offenders—a matter which may be of interest at the moment to the authorities of Bexhill and Eastbourne. We know that the privilege was abused. John Selden, in his "Table Talk," complained that Members were incurring the just scorn of the people by proliferating these privileges.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I hope the hon. Member will bear in mind that these are diplomatic privileges that we are debating.

Mr. Hale: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am discussing diplomatic privileges on Second Reading. On Second Reading, I discuss the principles of the Bill. On Second Reading I have always been traditionally entitled to call in evidence experience of comparative matters and comparative affairs in every reasonable and comparable form of life.
The question of the privilege of private Members is always relevant. When I was on a mission abroad as a member of Western European Union, the Foreign Office provided me with a lavish double bed. When I invited my wife to participate, I found that I had broken the rules. Apparently, I could have invited a mistress because that would have been in the course of duty, or entertainment, but, my wife being in Paris, I was told that I would be surcharged. These are matters which exercise hon. Members from time to time. I have preserved a cheque for 1s. 10d. endorsed by the Foreign Office which states: "Received 1s.10d. in repayment for two boiled eggs ordered by the Member for Oldham but not consumed because they were underdone, not chargeable to public funds, at café complet at such and such a hotel, Paris". This was ten years ago, but the Foreign Office is not generous in according privileges.
Another matter which I have raised from time to time in the House—and I

venture to say at once that again I am taking an analogy from another Bill—is that we are faced with a very great deal of obscurantism. The noble Lord who introduced this Measure in another place and gave much the same explanation as the Minister has given today—the noble Lord has left the quarterdeck—looked at the Clauses and said that they did appear to mean what they seemed to mean. He said that he would go back to the Foreign Office after the Committee stage and would find out why they meant what they meant and would return on Report and explain to the noble Lords what they meant and why. The noble Lord said that he had listened with great attention and came to the conclusion that the Minister knew what the Bill meant but that he had not been able to explain it
It is in these terms that the Bill passed to this House. When there is an allegation of obscurantism it is invariably received with pococurantism—Id certum est quid certum reddi potest. Ministers say, "If we cannot tell you now, there is always the court of appeal".
Two days ago the Court of Appeal was called upon to consider the terms and meaning of recent Measures passed by this House. Lord Justice Harman, in an outspoken addition to English literature, said, after pointing out that learned counsel on both sides who were technically learned in the law had overlooked one very relevant provision, that to arrive at a conclusion
involved the Court wading through a monstrous legislative morass, staggering from stone to stone, ignoring the marsh gas rising from it".
At one time his Lordship had regarded it as the slough of despond and thought that the court would never have dragged its heavy feet through it; but quacunque via, getting from tuft to tuft as best he could. This picture of the Lord Justice laboriously tuft hunting in the interests of the nation is genuinely pathetic.
Lord Justice Diplock, who obviously agreed in a brief but admirably reported judgment, said that he preferred the classic to the peregrinic approach. To me that had a touch of temporary obscurantism. My mind went to falcons swooping from point to point. I even recalled the Peregrine, the philosopher from Parius, who was a devotee of all


the schools of sophism before he became a cynic, finally won immortality by a demonstrative self-incineration.
But it was in the classic definition of an ambassador by Sir Henry Wootton that I found the clear explanation of Lord Justice Diplock's phrase. He was clearly referring, with some disfavour, to Chesterton's well-known statement that one could travel to Birmingham by way of Beachy Head and deplored enforced peregrination. Wootton said: "Legatus est vir bonus peregre missus ad mentiendum reipublicae causa", which I will translate as meaning that an ambassador is an honest man sent to lie abroad for the Commonwealth. The translator whom I quote said, "sent abroad to lie," which is rather more discourteous.
We are entitled to ask whether anyone knows what this Bill means. I made an intervention which I thought was of some relevance. People are killed in motor accidents. We are not discussing Her Britannic Majesty's Ambassador to the United States, whom most of us remember with affection, or the United States Ambassador to the Court of St. James, a man of great ability, distinction and charm, who, I am sorry to say, we may be losing in the interests of his country because he may be returning to higher duties, who is a gentleman by nature. Even they have to face the dilemma that gentlemen of their type are reluctant to claim privileges for themselves but are duty bound to preserve them inviolate for their successors. This is one of the dilemmas of privilege even in this House. One asserts one's right to privilege sometimes because one feels that an individual is not justified in making a temporary sacrifice of a collective right or even be interpreted as purporting to do so.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: Unless one wants to sit for Bristol, South-East.

Mr. Hale: That point would take me rather a long time to develop. I had the great privilege as a Member of the House of Lords and House of Commons Joint Committee of expressing my views on that matter. Had they carried weight, we should not have had the present Prime Minister. I recall to the Minister a

fascinating story penned by a very distinguished former public servant, Sir Lawrence Jones, who wrote the fanciful story of the Chancellor of the Exchequer accidentally and fatally shooting the Prime Minister, whom he did not like, on a grouse moor. There was the harassing question of whether he should take the vacant post in view of the circumstances.
Had it been a distinguished ambassador who was grouse shooting the problem would have been even more acute, although the exception in the Bill seems to say that there could be litigation over the ownership of the moor but not over the corpse of the Prime Minister, and that it would not be possible to bring any criminal proceedings if there were any suspicion that the accident had been less fortuitous than was first apparent.
I do not doubt that there must be and should be protection. It is right that there should be protection. I do not doubt that it is reasonable to say that an ambassador could be more bitterly attacked through his wife or children and that a bold and courageous man might be more timid in the face of threats of arbitrary action against his family than he would be over his own reputation. These are reasonable matters. But how far do they go?
The courts have already interpreted "the family" as meaning the wife and children. They have not had to deal with the question of Mohammedan ambassadors to know how many wives and how many children. This is the essence of the matter. This is what we are dealing with. We are dealing with cases in which an ambassador may say, "I married this girl by a shake of the hand in the embassy yesterday. The is my 31st wife and I claim privilege against this criminal charge". I should be the last to say anything which might be thought to be derogatory about some of my friends in other countries who have their own views on marriage, and who are entitled to have them.
What about a mother-in-law under this legislation? Is she a member of the family? [Laughter.] This is not being funny. As I understand the Clause, it extends to any relative who is living with him and, strangely enough, not to a relative who is not living with


him. A distinguished lady who, having married the ambassador, then falls out with him, loses her privilege the moment she has fallen out with him and leaves the embassy and establishes a state of separation. The provision seems not to have been fully considered.
We are told that there is a new definition which everybody will clearly understand and that a diplomatic agent means a member of the diplomatic staff. Every one of us knows that that will come to mean any diplomatic member of the staff. Anyone who has a certain amount of diplomacy could get himself listed under that heading—unless somebody is to decide. I asked the Minister who would decide. This is the point at which we have come into conflict. If my widow comes along and says that the vacancy for Oldham, West, not only involved a by-election but also involved certain financial loss for her, because I had come into contact with a motor car bearing the sign CD., which we believe to be corps diplomatique but which might mean civil defence, what is she to do about it? I think that we are entitled to a definite answer on this.
As I understand it, if the ambassador says, "In my view that car was being driven by a servant of the embassy on duty", that is the end of it. If the ambassador says, "It was being driven by a diplomatic agent on or off duty, it does not matter which"—that is an end of it. If he says, "It was being driven by a member of the administrative staff on duty", that is an end of it. If he says, "It was being driven by a servant of any of them on work of the embassy or in the course of duties being performed by the embassy", that is an end of it.
One cannot even invoke insurance. Surely that is a wholly unnecessary and wholly unreasonable situation. There would be no difficulty at all, because of the existence of institutions such as Lloyds which can be relied on in such matters to exercise a very high standard of probity and which could provide a form of protective insurance which would have to be of a special nature—because one cannot sue an insurance company direct under our law. It may be possible under some laws. It is held that one has not an interest; one has not

a legal interest in the policy of the owner.
The insurance company is liable only if the ambassador or his staff are to blame. We have no means of establishing that, because we cannot even bring the matter to negotiation. We must simply accept somebody's decision. This puts an end to all action. The Bill means that somebody has an absolutely free hand to decide.
I am not greatly concerned about parking offences, but the Minister in one sentence made the most damaging remark about the Bill when he said that the police are providing weekly lists. They used to provide a list once a century. Is it not time that we seriously considered whether the whole of this protection is necessary for the ambassador, his wife, his children, for the person who takes the place of the ambassador, his wife and his children if they are living there, and for other members of the staff? We know that administrative staff include shorthand typists, and in fact anybody in this country not of British nationality but employed at an embassy. That seems to be the effective test. Any of these people can leave a parked car at the moment in the middle of Westminster Bridge and say, "Go to hell"—and report the police for dumb insolence if they make an inquiry. That is being done, and it is establishing a position.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I do not think the hon. Member is quite right in what he says. I think that if this is done the CD plate carries no privilege whatever with it. If that is done, the police are entitled to report that car, irrespective of whether it is carrying CD plates. It then goes through the machinery to find out whether the driver is privileged.

Mr. Hale: I do not think that it would be usefully reported. There was a case reported abroad the other day of a man who was driving at 70 to 80 miles an hour and who issued a summons against the police for being hostile to him. Of course the police can report it, but what happens? As the well-informed Press tell us from time to time, traffic wardens are in this difficulty. After all, they are performing a duty entrusted to them by the House and trying to perform it with


what courtesy they can. I do not say that I feel any great passion for them. I found a ticket on my car the other Christmas. I thought it was a present of soap from Lord Leverhulme, and I drove about with it for several days until I found that it was a ticket which would cost me £2.
Now we have two categories with whom the traffic wardens deal. They see a car carrying a CD plate and they say, "This means corps diplomatique"; and they save themselves a lot of trouble by saying, "It is no use reporting that one". Of course, it may be transferred, if they are diligent, to the list which will be supplied from Scotland Yard once a week—or it may not. Respect for the law nowadays is diminishing, and I understand that they claim that anybody who gets pinched, and who has not a CD plate, writes to say that a friend of his was driving the car who is no longer in the country, having returned to his original address in Outer Mongolia, and he regrets that he cannot now supply the present address of the driver owing to the delay in bringing the inquiries forward, which is usually a few weeks.
It is not a very happy state of affairs. My right hon. and learned Friend offered one defence—that we are ratifying an international convention. We are not. A lot of the international convention is not in the Bill and much of it has been amended. Amendments were introduced in another place, and special provisions were added. There is no assurance that other people will ratify the international convention in the same form. There has been another convention since then about consuls. We have not heard about it, and I gather that even the Government are not yet ready for it.
We still have a very real dilemma. If the Minister is to seek the leave of the House to reply, I hope that he will do so, and that he will be given it, and that he will answer some questions. Will he tell us the number? Will he tell us who is to decide what is a member of the diplomatic staff? Will he tell us how one brings a matter to the court or whether one can bring a matter to the court in face of a certificate from the ambassador that the person was being employed in

the course of his duties as a servant of the embassy? Will he tell us whether any provisions are being introduced to provide for effective insurance cover? I see no reason why this should not be done. Finally, will he answer one point which intrigues me very much: why are these people to be exempt from the law of contract? They pay no tax, they pay no rates and they pay no duties except on theatre tickets, in respect of which one cannot split the duty. If they buy a few cigarettes outside those which are imported free of duty by the embassy, they may pay duty on them. But they are exempt from almost everything. They are exempt from Income Tax and Purchase Tax if they import goods—and I believe that they can also get an export certificate to buy goods in this country free of duty. I do not know how it is done, but I believe that it is done. They are exempt from almost everything but a small part of their rates.
They can declare their bills and their papers inviolate in the embassy. Their papers are inviolate, their bags are inviolate—by which I mean their travelling bags—and they are free from almost any form of perquisition. They need only say, "We are lodging a few papers at the home of one of the members of our staff", and they become inviolate, too. Or one runs the risk of making a perquisition of an official document.
They are protected in their forms of transport and they are exempt from the laws of contract. Why should they be exempt from the laws of contract? This question arose in a case in which it was held by the British courts that an ambassador was not even compelled to pay a call upon his shares. He could buy the shares and take the chance of their going up or going down, but if the situation of the company becomes precarious he cannot be compelled to supply the money which is due under a contractual obligation specifically entered into.
The Minister will say, "Under the Bill we have cleared all that up". This is one thing which he will say that he is clear about because he will say, "This would not be part of its commercial activities". But might it not be? Would an investment in the Channel Tunnel—not, of course, in the first £1¼ million which we have heard about but later, when it is being developed—perhaps not


fall within the ambit of the duties of an ambassador who was a servant of a continental country? I should have thought that it might be.
I say again that this House ought to make up its mind that it knows what it is doing or trying to do. It ought to make clear what the privileges are. It ought to have some method of being able to identify. The Lords of Appeal, two days ago, were talking not about the original maze of town and country planning but about a clarifying Act of 1959. Lord Justices of Appeal do not use language like that unless they are really concerned that the burden that Parliament is putting on the courts in leaving unresolved questions for their decision and referring to them matters which are outside the ambit of their control. Lord Justice Harman said
It would never have dragged its heavy feet through it; but quacunque via".
I was almost tempted to translate that as Chacun a son gout, but I hesitate to do so. But it is time that Parliament took these matters seriously and that we had a little less pococurantism and a little more explicit definition so that we knew at the end of this Bill what we were doing and what the effect of it was likely to be.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) certainly succeeded in doing as he promised by proving to us that it is possible to go from London to Birmingham via Beachy Head, jumping one might say, from tuft to tuft on the way. However, if when he receives the missive which is undoubtedly on the way to him asking him to supply HANSARD with his quotations he finds it necessary to leave, I shall not take it amiss.
I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister what is the nature of this Vienna Convention, which this Bill is mainly about? Am I to understand that we have ratified it and are proposing to make it an international treaty which binds this country? If so, is it of the nature which these treaties usually are, that we have to accept it altogether or else not accept it, except that we can go further than the treaty goes? That is to say, is it the position that the provisions of the Vienna Convention represent the minimum

diplomatic privilege which we mutually promise to operate in this country, and that if we operate less we cannot, in fact, ratify the Convention, but that we can give greater privilege, either generally or in particular cases, without being in any way in breach of the Convention? That is what I would expect the position to be, but I should like to know whether my expectations are correct.
I see that the missive has arrived and the hon. Member for Oldham, West has leave of absence from me at any rate to take his dictionaries of French, Latin and other languages with him.
If my assumption is correct, then, of course, there would be no difficulty about Clause 7, which provides that we can give wider diplomatic privilege to certain countries with which we have at the present time agreements which provide for wider privileges. On the other hand, I should find it difficult to understand how we can ratify the Convention unless there is a provision in it for a restriction such as appears in Clause 3. In saying that, I do not wish to indicate that I am in any way opposed to the provisions of Clause 3, which seem to me to be eminently reasonable.
We have in fact taken retaliatory action on a number of occasions in the past, and I think it desirable that we should have the power to do so; but if, in fact, there are no reservations in the Convention, which I understand to be the position, how are we able to put Clause 3 into the Bill if we are proposing to ratify the Convention?
Secondly, I should like to ask him to assist me on this point. On the second page of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill it is stated:
As the result of the Bill heads of missions will no longer be able to claim relief from income tax on interest on all British Government and certain other securities".
That is all right, but it goes on to state:
High Commissioners of Commonwealth countries who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies or are permanently resident in the United Kingdom will lose their exemption from income tax. …
As I understand if, that arises from Article 38 of the Convention. I find that a rather disagreeable proposal. If all other diplomatic representatives, ambassadors and so on, and their diplomatic staffs are to enjoy exemption from


United Kingdom Income Tax—if that is right, and that is provided in the Convention—and if the High Commissioners of any British Commonwealth country are to enjoy exemption from the United Kingdom Income Tax in general, why should not these particular ones among them who at the time of appointment have been permanently resident in the United Kingdom, although not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, have equal privileges?
Let us take a straightforward case of a Canadian who is a British subject but not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies because he has ordinary Canadian citizenship. That is to say, he is a British subject but a Canadian citizen but he has been for some years permanently resident in the United Kingdom—a distinguished Canadian who is over here. His Government appoint him high commissioner in the United Kingdom for Canada—the kind of thing that could easily happen. He then comes into this special disadvantaged category of being subject to United Kingdom Income Tax, although all other high commissioners, ambassadors, every humble diplomat on the staff of a foreign country or of a Commonwealth country is exempt from it. I do not understand why this should be so.
It would be an odd thing if that were the existing position and simply going on; but it is not the existing position. They are at present, as I understand it from the Explanatory Memorandum, enjoying the same exemption as other people, but by this Bill we shall be taking it away from them.
If I am right in thinking that to ratify the Convention we have only to regard it as the minimum of privileges and that we are fully at liberty to confer wider privileges, and if I am right in thinking that Article 38, which is printed as an annexe to the Bill and which begins with the words:
Except in so far as additional privileges and immunities may be granted by the receiving State …
means, as it surely must, that we can go further in this matter if we want to, I suggest that we should take advantage of the liberty which the Convention gives us to put Commonwealth high commissioners in the same position as

ambassadors or, to be more particular, put high commissioners permanently resident in this country at the time of their appointment into the same position as high commissioners who have come to us from their own or some other country.
Equally, I see that this disadvantage attaches to high commissioners of Commonwealth countries who happen to be citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. The British Commonwealth has operated as a family and there are many people in Australia and Canada and other overseas British countries who are still citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. They were born in Britain, but went to those countries and have lived there for perhaps 20 or 30 years, naturally retaining their United Kingdom citizenship. After all, the status of British subject was split only in 1949. Until then, it was a unitary conception, and as only 15 years have passed since 1949, there must be many people in British overseas territories who in the ordinary way are Canadians or Australians, or whatever it is, who have United Kingdom passports and United Kingdom citizenship. If one of those is chosen in his own country as high commissioner to Britain and is sent to London, he will find when he arrives that he is in a specially disadvantageous category and subject to ordinary British Income Tax, although all other diplomats are exempt from it. This is a regrettable innovation and I hope that something can be done to correct it.
The right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) cavilled at the reference to Southern Rhodesia in Clause 8. I must say that if it is necessary to refer to Southern Rhodesia in the Bill at all, I should have thought that Clause 8(2) was about the most innocuous way it could be done, because it says:
This Act shall be construed as if Southern Rhodesia were a State.
The implication of that is that Southern Rhodesia is not a State, but is to be treated as though it were. I cannot understand why the right hon. and learned Gentleman should take umbrage at that form of words. Whether it is necessary to mention Southern Rhodesia at all depends on a more detailed study than I


have made of the partial repeals listed in the third column of Schedule 2. No doubt we can attend to that in Committee, but I should be very unhappy if in any way the existing diplomatic privileges of Southern Rhodesia were removed or reduced by the Bill.
Finally, I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us a little more about the many articles not included in Schedule 1. I imagine that they do not need statutory force. Am I right in thinking that the Bill, which schedules certain articles in the Convention and which repeals certain Acts and certain parts of Acts, nevertheless will leave unchanged any part of the common law relating to diplomatic privilege which is not expressly repealed by it? That is my understanding and it may be the reason why it is not necessary to put into the Schedule certain of the omitted articles in the Convention, but there are certain rules of common law relating to the immunity of ambassadors and I assume that these will continue even though this statutory code is being introduced.
With those remarks, I give my general support to the Bill.

5.24 p.m.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: The custom of diplomatic immunity is very old and very necessary. It has grown a great deal in recent years with the number of newly independent countries, and as it has grown and multiplied there is no doubt that abuses have multiplied. The Bill has many loopholes, but it is an attempt to regularise the whole principle of diplomatic immunity on an international basis. I am not so certain about how successful it will be in that objective.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) put his finger on the crux of the problem when he said that there were a number of countries in which he would not like to stand trial.

Mr. Ronald Bell: He made it clear that England was among them.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I agree with the hon. Member for Oldham, West that this is the crux of the problem. We have missions in almost all those countries and on those missions are men and women of all ranks and grades performing all sorts of different functions necessary

to the life of diplomatic missions. All hon. Members would wish to protect members of our missions in those countries from the grosser form of abuse—and we can think of areas where the most savage sentences might be awarded for quite trivial motoring and other offences—but it is here that we come to the trouble, because the whole basis of diplomatic imunity is reciprocal, a quid pro quo.
Therefore, if we are to achieve immunity for our own diplomatic missions abroad, who may be serving in countries where there are considerable difficulties, we have to give comparable immunity to diplomatic staffs of those countries serving in the United Kingdom, where the process of law and justice is very different and where the degree of immunity which has to be given seems to us here to be absurdly wide.
Whether it be the inviolability of premises, the sanctity of communications by bag, the immunity of a member of a diplomatic mission from personal search, or liability to tax, the difficulty is that if we were to reduce the degree of immunity which diplomats in this country enjoy, our own diplomats overseas would be placed in still greater difficulty.
For instance, if we withheld a foreign diplomat's immunity from arrest on leaving London Airport to go home on leave, supposing it were thought that he had been engaged in suspicious contacts, no one in this country would imagine for a moment that our police would abuse their powers. But it is very doubtful that we would not thereby put our own diplomats in certain overseas posts in an impossible position, with the chance of their being arrested on leaving other airports on the most ridiculous trumped-up charges. Normal life in the diplomatic service might be brought virtually to a standstill.
It is this reciprocity on which the whole principle is based, and it is this which presents the House with the greatest difficulty, because, as has been said quite openly, there is in the whole concept of how we work and operate diplomatic immunity a completely double standard according to the country in which one lives, the degree of civilisation that one has acquired, and the experience which people in the different countries have had.

Mr. Hale: The hon. Gentleman is speaking fairly and clearly, and he has not said a word from which I actively dissent, but when one considers what is, of course, an extremely important and serious matter, and when one applies it in the form of a blueprint, the reasoning is apt to get away from the subject when one is wondering whether the punishment of a cook at the Ruritanian Embassy for a breach of the parking laws in Britain would react on Her Majesty's Ambassador in Peking.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: One has to be very careful about giving any specific examples. In any case, it is better to take hypothetical examples. If we were to restrict the diplomatic immunity given at the moment to the servant of an ambassador, or to any domestic employee in an embassy here, in the way that some hon. Members have suggested, I think that there would be a great danger that week in and week out the domestic staff of Her Majesty's Ambassador in Ruritania would be arrested on all sorts of completely trumped-up charges in all sorts of ridiculous circumstances, thus rendering the work of the British Ambassador in Ruritania almost intolerable. That is the difficulty as I see it.

Commander Courtney: There have been three instances in recent years of arrest or detention of Her Majesty's diplomatic representatives within the meaning of the Convention that we are discussing, which were flagrantly against the Convention.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: But when that happens we have the right of retaliation. That weapon has been used before now with varying degrees of effect. If my recollection is correct, when British diplomats serving behind the Iron Curtain were restricted in their movements to within 30 or 40 kilometres of the capital, we imposed similar restrictions on diplomats from Iron Curtain countries serving in London. We always have that weapon, and it is a weapon which ought to be used.
The point that I was making was that where there is a Convention signed by 80 nations at Vienna, we in this House ought to ensure that while we do not

put more people than necessary above the law—which is a principle which no one wants—we do protect the interests, or if you like the physical security, of members of the British Diplomatic Service serving overseas in difficult circumstances, and sometimes in very difficult countries.
The Bill has been put together in a slightly haphazard form. It is strange that certain Articles of the Vienna Convention have been included, while others have not. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will explain this and other matters which hon. Members have raised. I hope that the House will give its blessing to the Bill, but in Committee we shall have to look at it very carefully and perhaps stop up a number of loopholes.

5.35 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: It is somewhat piquant to say that the Bill stems from the Vienna Convention, when we find that in Vienna our own embassy is being so curtailed in senior members that we are beginning to wonder what the embassy is going to be there for it the process continues. During the last Recess I was one of the Members appointed to go to Vienna on behalf of the House to take part in a conference of Parliamentarians and scientists. We had the privilege of being entertained at the embassy while we were there. To my astonishment I found that in the one country which one can say has come out of the Iron Curtain, and therefore the one country in which it is most important to make a real success of things, the former consul-general, the former head of chancery, and the former Minister are now jobs carried out by one man. There is not much privilege about that. It is a considerable load for any man to carry, and I think that when we call on members of our overseas missions to carry out rôles of this sort we should ensure that they enjoy all the privileges necessary for them to carry out such tasks.
An idea was put into my head by an old friend of mine who has served this country in many capacities, having been a Member of the House at one time, and has I think paid out the troops of Haile Sellassie in silver coinage of the late lamented Maria Theresa. There


is in fact a law operating here. The law is that every social system produces a privileged class organically just as a muck heap produces maggots. If one looks at history, one finds that there has always been some form of privileged class, but this new diplomatic class which is emerging now—and in referring to diplomatic staffs I include the international staffs of the United Nations and other international organisations—is the first totally tax-free class since the pre-revolution French noblesse. It is the first class not subject to the civil law since pre-Reformation priesthood, but at least they could be hauled before the ecclesiastical courts.
The more necessary the world considers it to have these privileged classes created, the more important it is that we should watch them, because they breed like flies, and presumably in the years to come we shall have the sons and grandsons—and perhaps daughters, as well—getting jobs in this privileged section of the world community simply because they are the sons or grandsons of somebody who was appointed in our day to serve the United Nations. This creation of the privileged class is on the grow. Maybe it has to grow, but I still say that the House would be wise to keep a very close eye on it.
The chief security officer in a country in the Near East, which I had better not name, once said that if someone really wanted to find out where the illicit traffic in gold and drugs was most prevalent, he had better look in the diplomatic bags from Latin America and Mexico. I do not know whether this can be substantiated, but a chief security officer might well be a person who would have some grounds for saying such a thing. Some Arab States were included in his castigation.
It is worth noting that as recently as the turn of February and March the Mexican Ambassador to Bolivia and two other Latin American diplomats were arrested in Canada on charges of smuggling heroin to a value in excess of 20 million dollars. I do not know whether, from time to time, any steps are taken by the Foreign Office, in conjunction with our police and security forces, to discover whether there is any connection between the visits of certain

foreign diplomats and a sudden outbrust of drug trafficking in Britain. Certainly there should be.
I do not know whether that Mexican ambassador to Bolivia had been to Britain around that time. I do not know whether Soho is benefiting from it. But we should be cautious before we grant privileges to people whom we may or may not like, may or may not trust, and may or may not know.
Today, communications are so much better than they ever were that sometimes the man on the spot is the one man who is never allowed to take a decision; every decision is taken previously in Whitehall, and the man on the spot is merely told what to do. In the great days of our overseas missions the man on the spot was trusted to do the job which he had undertaken without being subjected to too much interference. I sometimes wonder whether our improved communications do not have their disadvantages as well as their advantages.
One would have thought that because communications are so much better it would be less necessary rather than more necessary to grant these extra privileges. Yet we find that the opposite is happening. Privileges are being increased even now, although the Bill, and the Convention, to some extent, show that what this country has been providing by way of privileges was more than is now required as the basic minimum in the Convention. Perhaps it is a good thing that we are having to take away some of these privileges. Paragraph 4 of Article 27, and Article 36 of the Convention, dealing with Customs duties exemption, ought nevertheless still to retain to our authorities a sufficient right at least to open and inspect the diplomatic bag if they wish to when they are given information which may reasonably lead them to suppose that things are coming in which should not be coming in in it. Even if what comes in in the diplomatic bag may not have to pay duty, although it is dutiable, the bag can nevertheless be opened and inspected.
In these days, with the ever-growing problem of drugs being taken by juveniles and supplied by the most irresponsible citizens, acting as intermediaries of someone else, it is right that we should be able to keep a proper check on these matters, and if the diplomatic machinery is such as to allow the importation of


these substances we must use fairly stringently every power which remains to the Government under these Articles, and not give the impression that we are in the least lax in the exercise of what rights we have.
I feel it is a great pity that one privilege is contained in the Convention, which we cannot amend. It is contained in paragraph 2 of Article 31, which says:
A diplomatic agent is not obliged to give evidence as a witness.
In other words, he cannot be subpoenaed in British courts even if he has witnessed an accident or is himself involved in a case.
But in respect of the observations made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and others, about the abuse of our car parking laws and the exoneration of those who have committed offences under them, we ought all to be aware of the fact that the doyen of the Corps Diplomatique in Britain is held in very high esteem by all the missions in London; that he is well aware of what has been happening, and is doing his best to see that all the missions are made aware of the resentment which is caused in the public mind by what is taking place.
Hon. Members may recall that in February I put down some Questions concerning the incidence of these parking offences and other motoring offences. Eventually, in a letter from the Joint Under-Secretary for the Home Department, I was given some appalling figures. For the year commencing September, 1960, there were 165 offences; in 1961 there were 789; in 1962 there were 1,746, and in 1963 there were 2,078. They are appalling figures, and I asked my hon. Friend whether he would try to discover which missions were the worst offenders.
I entered into a bargain with my hon. Friend on this one: the doyen of the Corps Diplomatique in London made a specific request that he should be left to try to bring home to the offenders the need to rectify this appalling situation. On that understanding I undertook—and I do not intend to break my bond—not to disclose who were the worst offenders. But I want to make it clear, here and

now, that if the figures continue on this scale I shall try to pin down in public which missions are the worst offenders, because it is grossly unfair to the British public to allow this sort of thing to continue.
The misunderstanding about the significance of the CD. plate on motor cars is one of the principle causes of public resentment. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) had a useful Adjournment debate on 10th April, to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs replied. As the hon. Member for Oldham, West said, it is clear that the letters C.D. might just well stand for "Civil Defence", for all the privileges that they carry. They carry none. I could put C.D. plates on my car if I wanted to, but I even avoided joining the House of Commons Motor Club because I bitterly resent people taking unnecessary privileges. I am aware that the original object of that exercise was to help the police to identify cars whose drivers were determined not to miss voting in the next Division. Nevertheless, I have often felt that the red badge draws unnecessary attention to one's car.
I do not know whether any member of the Metropolitan Police get a thrill out of "running in" a Member of Parliament rather than an ordinary member of the public. I should not like to think that they do, but I feel that they would be only human if sometimes they did. Privilege ought to be exercised only when absolutely necessary. I am quite certain that a large number of CD. plates which are exhibited on cars are unnecessary. Their use should be confined to the cars of heads of missions and perhaps their deputies and heads of chanceries. It is not necessary for every member of the embassy staff to have CD. plates on his car in order to sustain his status.
During the war I had a short experience of serving in an embassy overseas and certainly there are privileges which it is essential one should have. There are also some which it is extremely enjoyable to exercise. In London, where the amount of traffic is among the biggest of our problems members of all the missions, Commonwealth and foreign countries alike, would be well advised to take note of the indication conveyed


by the figures which I have quoted and to comply with the request of the doyen of the Corps Diplomatique in every way possible. None of us wishes ill-will to be built up between foreign missions and our own people in London, and every time one misunderstanding occurs one can wager that it will spread into hundreds very quickly.
I hope that my hon. Friend will give the House an assurance that, so far as we are able because of the implementation of the Convention of Vienna by the provisions of this Bill we shall watch for and seize illicit matter being brought into this country through diplomatic channels; and that we shall use to the full all the facilities provided to that end. This is perhaps one of the most important changes which has taken place as a result of the Convention. Search will be made much easier, but it will still be virtually impossible to charge duty. I must admit that there is no section of the community that I despise more than the person who gets a thrill from or enjoys opening the personal luggage of others and rummaging through it on behalf of the State. I find that rather a despicable exercise. But where privilege has been abused the offenders ought to be subjected to that unpleasant operation. If they have the power to do so, I hope that those who like rummaging through the private luggage of other people will not hesitate to do it, if they have the remotest suspicion that through diplomatic channels things are being brought into this country which ought not to be brought here.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Edward Gardner: The emphasis which my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) laid on the abuse of privilege is, I think, right. It is all too easy for those of us who are not diplomats to be annoyed by diplomats and some of the diplomatic facts of life. If the definition in Article 1 of Schedule 1 is applied and one identifies what is a diplomatic agent, one must face the fact that an agent is an exceedingly privileged person. It is, it has been, and it will always be all too easy for such a person to abuse his privileges. From the Articles contained in Schedule 1 it is clear that a diplomatic agent is inviolable.

He is not liable to arrest or to be detained, and the receiving country must treat him with what is described as due respect. The receiving country must take appropriate steps to protect his person, his freedom, his liberty and his dignity. That is a pretty tall order for those of us whose freedom, person and dignity would suffer at the hands of the law if we were foolish enough to misbehave ourselves.
In this country there are about 3,500 people who could claim diplomatic immunity. In one year the London County Council issued nearly 2,000 Excise exempt licences. In one year there were nearly 50 traffic accidents in which people were injured but were unable to make a successful claim because the plea of diplomatic immunity was raised. In one year about 2,000 parking offences were committed by people who claimed immunity because of their diplomatic status. The only satisfaction that we who are not beneficiaries of this immunity are left with is the knowledge that our own diplomatic agents abroad have the same privileges.
However angry we may be about a diplomatic corps Rolls-Royce obstructing the traffic in Piccadilly, such an offence is clearly not one which harms this country, and I do not think we should allow our indignation over these smaller matters to blind us to the graver aspects of the misuse of diplomatic privilege. I am by no means certain, but I feel—as I think does my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney)—disturbed enough to raise the matter during this Second Reading debate. I am disturbed by the possibility that diplomatic privilege is being used by people engaged in espionage activities.
This Bill gives the force of law to the relevant provisions of the Vienna Convention of 1961 and so converts what has been called one of the oldest subjects in the field of international law into a modern code. The 22 States which became parties to the Convention made clear that in agreeing to the various rules they intended to make a contribution to peaceful international relations between those States which agreed to comply with the rules. I suggest that it must follow, conversely, that any use of these


rules which govern diplomatic privileges and immunities which, instead of promoting peaceful co-operation between the countries concerned, in fact tends to destroy or disturb those peaceful relations must of its very nature and definition be an abuse of that privilege for which, as I read the provisions of the Bill, there are no remedies available at present in law.
Since 1961, when this Convention was agreed to by this country, much has happened in the international field. Possibly I speak for many in this House when I say that I am left with an uneasy feeling. A number of notorious spy cases since 1961 have given the impression—I hope it is the wrong impression, but certainly it is an impression I get—that diplomatic immunity has been used to conceal and make possible successful espionage. In 1961 the Convention recognised that not all diplomats are saints.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) quoted that maxim which he translated so aptly as meaning that an ambassador is an honest man sent abroad to lie. I think that is a little hard, but it was recognised in 1961 that a member of the diplomatic staff might involve himself or herself in an adventure of smuggling.
Article 36 of the Convention, in order to meet this contingency, exposed the personal baggage of a diplomatic agent to inspection by Customs officers if—I use the words of the Article
there are serious grounds for presuming
that the baggage contains prohibited articles or articles not intended for the personal use of the diplomatic agent or any official use of the mission. A diplomatic agent bringing to this country a load of vodka for illicit sale could be stopped and his contraband could be seized. I have no doubt that it is a great relief to all of us to know that the Customs can search and, if they find any, can confiscate contraband of this kind, but what about the diplomatic agent who uses his diplomatic privileges and diplomatic immunity to give protection, not for some sordid smuggling enterprise, but in order that he may be able to trade more safely and more successfully vital State secrets which could undermine the whole security of this country?
Under Article 29 of the Convention, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harrow, East was careful to point out, such a person acting in such a capacity still remains inviolable. He cannot be arrested, he cannot be detained, and no action—certainly under this Bill—can be taken against him. I feel some uncertainty and discomfort about this omission. Does my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary think that we ought to have in this Bill some provision which would give the authorities power to deal with the diplomatic agent abusing his immunity by undertaking espionage activities? Could we introduce into the Bill a provision of the character which is contained in the Article dealing with customs offences? Does my hon. Friend think that necessary? I should be delighted if he assured the House that such a provision is superfluous, but I invite him and the Government to consider it.
Have we here a grave lacuna in the Bill, or is one's feeling of unease based on insubstantial and quite worthless grounds? I know not, but it seems that if we are to give Customs officers power to deal with smuggling we ought to give the authorities, if necessary, power to deal with diplomatic agents who are in fact nothing more nor less than spies. If there are any Communist counterparts to such a person as the fictional James Bond, the Government ought to take steps and powers to deal with them. I see nothing in this Bill which gives any such powers. I should like very much, as I am sure the House would like, to know from the Under-Secretary of State whether the Government think that such powers are necessary.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I have one or two questions to ask arising from the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner). If the Government come across a case where an abuse of this kind has taken place by a member of a diplomatic corps from another country, have not the Government the right to ask for his recall? Has not this been done on numerous occasions? I think the Government have that power and I do not think it necessary to have inserted in this Bill power to deal with this problem. I should be surprised to find that the Government have not got that power.
This would also apply to espionage. If any country wished to indulge in espionage it would not want to send away the results of its espionage in the diplomatic bag. If it were very good at this job it would find other methods of sending all the information it had. There is a great resentment in this country about the use of motor cars with C.D. plates. A member in the other House said that he insisted on putting C.D. on his car to prove that he had a clean driving licence, which seems about as useful as putting the letters on to represent Corps Diplomatique.
If accidents take place there is no sanction of law against the driver of the offending car. I am told that other methods are adopted by which payments are made. That may be all right when the country concerned is prepared to honour the debt which results, but there may be smaller countries which will not enter the agreement. It seems quite easy for the Government to accord this diplomatic privilege to those countries when it is done at the expense of the citizen. It would be better if some reciprocal arrangement were made whereby the Government to which a diplomatic car involved in an accident belonged accepted responsibility, where appropriate, for damages. Certainly, this hardship should not be inflicted upon individual citizens injured in accidents involving diplomatic cars.
I want to say something in defence of those who examine bags. I was a little surprised by the harsh things said by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) about Customs officers. After all, these officers are employed to do a job for the country and it is not a very pleasant one. He admitted that there are abuses and that it was therefore essential for officers to examine bags in order to stop or prevent such abuses. Having gone that far, it was surely a little unfair of him to describe our Customs officers as doing a despicable task. That task was laid on them by the nation.
The hon. Gentleman instanced the case of dope being smuggled into this country and doing great harm to younger people. How is one to put a stop to that unless someone on our behalf has the right to examine the bags of those entering? I agree that we must always be very careful

about extending the privileges of any person, even of a diplomat. But at least, when we ask some officers to do a certain job on behalf of the nation, we might have a little sympathy for them if that task is unpleasant.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Mathew: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will answer now some of the points raised in this debate.
In spite of some fairly hard things said about details of the Bill, and about the whole question of diplomatic immunity and privilege, and in spite of the rather colourful picture of a legislative morass and of marsh gas painted by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), the House has, by and large, given this useful Bill a welcome as a step forward towards the codification of this very important branch of international law. This law has grown up over many years and the initiative for codification originated in the United Nations. It is something that I commend to the House and which we should certainly welcome.
We have had a good discussion, but the essence of the matter is, as has been said, reciprocity. Quite rightly, hon. Members have discussed what happens here as a result of diplomatic immunity and privilege. But I remind them that at least as important is what happens in foreign countries where we have diplomatic representatives.
The right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) welcomed the Bill and raised a number of queries, including one on Clause 8(2), where there is a reference to Southern Rhodesia. The answer is straight forward. It is there because Southern Rhodesia is not a State and not because it is a State. It is a matter of recognising the diplomatic status of representatives of Southern Rhodesia. That status was already recognised in 1952 by the Act to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred. It would be illogical, therefore, to leave Southern Rhodesia out. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the language of the reference not being felicitous, but that is attributing to some African nations a sensitivity and delicacy which they have not got. I do not believe that these nations are not


able to see things as they are. Here is a country which already has diplomatic status under an Act passed by this House, and the Bill recognises the fact. I repeat that it would be illogical to leave Southern Rhodesia out.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also raised questions about certain definitions, including that of "diplomatic agent". I will deal with that in a moment.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) asked me a series of questions. A number of them were really Committee points, but I will do my best to satisfy his curiosity now. He asked why there had been a three-year delay before this Bill came before the House. The reason is that after we signed the Convention it was necessary to have full and complicated examination of the Convention and to hold consultations not only with the appropriate authorities here but in Commonwealth countries as well. It would have been most imprudent and open to criticism in the House had we rushed into legislation without meticulous examination of an important Measure.
My hon. and gallant Friend also asked why only some of the Articles in the Convention appear in Schedule 1. Clauses 1 and 2 provide for the replacement of existing law, including the common law as it stands in this matter. The Articles appearing in Schedule 1 cover that ground with the alterations already indicated. To put it another way—the Articles omitted from Schedule 1 are those which would not require legislation in order to be enforced in this country.
My hon. and gallant Friend also asked me about Article 47. It seems to me that he was accepting, like some other hon. Members, that this Article extends exceptions. I made it clear that we have existing arrangements which we cannot abandon without consultation with the nations concerned. There is no question of extending any and when my hon. and gallant Friend speaks of a double standard then that is a complete misdescription.
My hon. and gallant Friend also referred, as did other hon. Members, to the use of these privileges for blackmail,

espionage and other such activities. Is he really suggesting that we should abandon the protection given to diplomats here and so expose our own people overseas, many of them in countries where the rule of law has not the long tradition that we know, to all the pressures and dangers of which we are extremely well aware in this House? If certain countries have from time to time made use of the diplomatic bag and its immunity for espionage, if that were closed to them they would find other means. I do not believe that the extent or even the efficacy of espionage would be affected one iota, because other methods would be found.

Commander Courtney: I share my hon. Friend's feelings about the possibilities of action against our diplomats abroad, but would he accept one proposition? With some countries, which need not be named, it can easily be a matter of policy to bring pressure to bear, not only on our diplomats abroad, but on their wives and families, for the very purpose of preserving or extending their privileges in this country, which is exactly what my hon. Friend is doing in this Bill.

Mr. Mathew: My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that by and large this is not an extension. I do not believe that the task of any Power that wishes to do that will be made any easier by the Bill. However, these are matters for consideration in detail. My hon. and gallant Friend has raised a technical matter and I can only express my opinion. I do not believe that the point has any great weight.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West in one of his typically eloquent speeches, in which he had the close attention of the House, as he always does, raised a number of important points. He recalled, somewhat nostalgically, the past privileges of Members of Parliament, which over the years have become unnecessary and have been lost. He accused the Bill of obscurantism and used some very hard words. If he is right, these are matters which will have to be tackled in Committee. He asked who decides whether a servant is off duty or on duty. Ultimately, as the hon. Gentleman knows, being learned in the law, this is a matter which must be decided on the evidence submitted to the court.

Mr. Hale: These people never get to court.

Mr. Mathew: The hon. Gentleman says that the offender will never get to court. The police must be satisfied that there is immunity. If there is any doubt about it, they can bring the person concerned to court, and then the court will decide, and there will be conflicting evidence in such cases.

Mr. Hale: That is not the point. Incidentally, I am flattered at the suggestion that I have nostalgic memories of something which passed over in the reign of George III. Supposing the police have decided wrongly, how does my missus assert her claim over my bruised and battered corpse? The matter cannot come to court. I understood the Minister to say in opening that the certificate of the Minister that someone was a servant of an embassy was conclusive against a litigant.

Mr. Mathew: In the hon. Gentleman's case, if his wife should have this misfortune, I have no doubt that she would communicate with the nearest Member of Parliament and I have no doubt that it would be brought to court. If a citizen lays an information, this must be looked into by the court and proof must be produced that there is an absolute defence of immunity.
The hon. Gentleman also asked why contract should be covered by immunity. Contract has been there for many centuries. Nobody is immune from the law of contract. Diplomats are under a duty to comply, and always were under a duty to comply, with the law of the country in which they find themselves. This is quite different from immunity from jurisdiction. I have stressed this afternoon on several occasions what the reason for that is. We should be in the very greatest difficulty if the observance of the law in the case of our overseas missions depended entirely on court proceedings. We must have this protection because of reciprocity. It would be quite illogical at this stage to take contract out. I do not believe there ever would have been a Convention had this been proposed. The Convention would not have been signed. We would have been alone in putting forward that point of view.
The hon. Gentleman asked who decides who is a diplomatic agent. A diplomatic

agent is defined in Article 1 of the Convention. He is a member of the staff having the rank of attaché or above, appointed to that rank by his Government, and whose name is communicated to the receiving Government. In short, he is proposed in that status by the sending Government and is accepted as such by the receiving Government. This is clear from Clause 4. The hon. Gentleman asked a number of other detailed points and pointed to some ambiguities, which are primarily matters to be dealt with in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) asked what is the nature of the Vienna Convention and why we have not ratified it. We signed the Convention in 1961. The Convention has come into effect. The purpose of the Bill is to bring our law into line and to obtain the consent of the House so that we can ratify it.
My hon. Friend then referred to Clause 7. This does not create a wider privilege. It maintains the exceptional arrangements we have in a very limited number of cases. The names of the countries concerned will be published in due course, after we have had time to consult and inform those countries. My hon. Friend will realise that we were bound by existing agreements. We should not have been able to contract out in the Bill, even had we wished to.

Mr. Ronald Bell: My point on Clauses 3 and 7 was that, as Clause 7 provides for wider diplomatic privileges, It is not in any way inconsistent with the Convention, whereas Clause 3, which appears to provide for some restriction not provided for in the Convention, seems to me possibly to raise a difficulty.

Mr. Mathew: Looking at the matter quickly, I do not see the inconsistency, but I will study this point. He also raised the question of Income Tax for citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who are Commonwealth representatives. It is intended to deal with that in due course by Order in Council.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) raised a number of points, and I am grateful for what he said about the difficulties experienced by our missions overseas. He spoke about the diplomatic bag and drew a rather gruesome picture of large-scale


smuggling taking place through it. I can assure him that Article 27 deals with the diplomatic bag while Article 36 deals with the personal baggage of diplomats. Under Article 27(3) the diplomatic bag cannot be opened, and this provision is included because it is essential for our own diplomats that there should be reciprocity in this matter.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Accepting that, and realising the need for reciprocity here, will my hon. Friend say what he visualises would be done by the authorities in the event of it being brought to the attention of Her Majesty's Government, by the police or any other authority, that the use of the diplomatic bag was being abused?

Mr. Mathew: We would inform the head of mission at once. Hon. Members should also not forget the ultimate sanction of withdrawing the immunity and declaring the diplomat persona non grata.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely then referred to certain organisations. This Bill does not deal with the international staffs to which he referred, but there is the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950, which lays down the extent of their privileges and immunities. However, this Bill does not deal with international staffs.
I thank my hon. Friend for the welcome he gave to the steps which Her Majsty's Government, the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office are taking to try to bring some order into the difficult matter of motor and parking offences. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I am not unhopeful that some progress will be made with the help of the distinguished Dean of the Diplomatic Corps, who has been energetic and helpful in this matter.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) asked about protection for people injured in motor accidents involving diplomats. The answer is that this is covered in the usual way by insurance or other arrangements so that citizens are not placed in financial difficulty. Apart from the question of the diplomat taking out insurance cover, the head of mission concerned would take all

steps to see that such difficulties were not encountered.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner) drew a rather terrifying picture of increased espionage and crimes against the State. I would remind him that there exist records of cases concerning foreign envoys, many of them from states which have long since disappeared, who were engaged in activities near to high treason. Since my hon. and learned Friend is learned in the law, I need not elaborate on those cases. Suffice to say that this is not a new business; that in the past there have been many cases, even dating back to the time when the Jacobites were given assistance under the cover of diplomatic privilege. We certainly cannot say that this is a new feature.
I appreciate the contributions and criticisms made of these provisions by hon. Members on both sides of the House and I hope that we will have an opportunity to consider these matters in more detail in Committee. In commending the Bill, I need only point out that this is a step forward in this important branch of international law, and is intended to bring certainty and uniformity into the law.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES

Resolved,
That it is expedient to authorise such charges to income tax and estate duty as may arise from replacing existing diplomatic privileges and immunities by those provided for by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.—[Mr. Green.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow: Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

6.37 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Quintin Hogg): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a very short Bill, but I hope that it will meet with the approval of the House as being valuable in content. It has two main purposes. Its principal purpose is to enable local authorities in England and Wales, and voluntary bodies, to experiment with new schools, but only new ones, in varying the age of transfer, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State for Education and Science. That is the purpose of Clause 1.
The second purpose, which covers both Scotland and England and Wales, is to remove an anomaly connected with the payment of maintenance allowances whereby the parents of handicapped children at special schools are precluded from receiving the benefit of the allowances if those children are between the ages of 15 and 16. That is the object of Clause 2 in regard to England and Wales, and of Clause 3 in regard to Scotland. I think that I can assure the House that Clauses 4 and 5 are, at any rate for the purposes of a Second Reading, either formal or consequential.
Perhaps I may deal with the two main purposes I have outlined in reverse order, that is to say, with Clauses 2 and 3 first. I would explain that the power that local education authorities have to make payment of maintenance allowances to parents of school children derives from Section 81(c) of the parent Act of 1944. This is drafted so as to permit the payment of maintenance allowances only in respect of children above compulsory school age, so that in the case of children at ordinary schools, whether they are handicapped children or children who are not handicapped, the age at which the allowances can be paid is, in consequence, 15. But under Section 38 of the principal Act it is provided that a handicapped child at a special school—not one at a general school—is deemed to be of compulsory school age until he reaches the age of 16.
Although I am absolutely certain that it was not in the minds of the draftsmen when the Act was passed, the House will see that the combined effect of those two Sections, and of the two Sections of the Scottish Act referred to in Clause 3, which have the same effect, is to deprive the parents of handicapped children of the benefit of the allowances for a year after the parents of the child in an ordinary school, whether handicapped or not, have been entitled to draw them. For the parents of a handicapped child at a special school this adds a financial disadvantage to the initial misfortune which those of us who are happy enough to be parents of normal children can guess at and deeply sympathise with, but perhaps can never fully appreciate.
I think that this is a mere anomaly, quite unintentional, and something that we have promised more than once to remedy when the opportunity occurred. I am glad that it has occurred now, and I am only sorry that it has not occurred before. Indeed, I hope that the day will arrive when we can evolve a method of Parliamentary procedure which avoids the consumption of Parliamentary time for uncontroversial and humanitarian legislation of this type. But we have not yet reached that stage.
If I may return to Clause 1, which is the main purpose of the Bill and limited to England and Wales, this is more substantial from the point of view of educational policy, although it is frankly experimental in character and limited in scope. As the House will know, it is a fundamental assumption of our legislation that schools are divided into primary and secondary, and the age of transfer, as I am afraid we call it in the jargon of education, is round about 11—that is after 10½ and before 12. This is the result, if I might again be precise, of reading Section 8 of the Act of 1944 with the definition Section, that is Section 114.
As the House knows, schemes of secondary reorganisation are very much in the air at the moment and it is, therefore, perhaps not altogether surprising that some local authorities—a notable example is the West Riding of Yorkshire, but it is not alone in that respect, I think—have shown a desire to experiment with the age of transfer itself. Owing to the way in which the Act is drafted in


these two Sections, they cannot properly do so under the existing law.
The purpose of Clause 1 is to remove this restriction for new schools, where the proposals meet with the approval of the Secretary of State for Education and Science under the well-known and very well tried provisions of Section 13 of the principal Act. The Bill was originally drafted for the benefit of local education authorities. This was because we supposed—wrongly, as it turned out—that only local authorities would be interested in experiments of this kind. In fact, up to that time we had only been approached by local authorities, but during the passage of the Bill through another place the voluntary bodies—the Roman Catholic authorities and the Church of England authorities—expressed the desire to be given a like right of experiment. Therefore, the Bill was amended in another place, gladly on our part, to include them.
I hope that the House will agree that what we propose is reasonable. There is nothing specially sacrosanct about 11 as an age of transfer. The case for 11 was very well and fully argued in the Hadow Report of 1926 and nobody can say that it was not prescribed by the law deliberately. But many other countries—and, indeed, our own independent system, of which some hon. Members are unworthy examples—have very largely settled down to an age of transfer centring round about the age of 13. Although the Hadow Report argues the matter very learnedly, I have never quite rid myself of the suspicion that the real reason for 11 lay in the historical fact that the old system of universal, compulsory, elementary education prior to 1900 long ended at the age of 11, so that when the central Government and local education authorities came to add post-primary—or, as it was afterwards called, secondary—provision they found it more convenient to superimpose new schools on top of their existing school structure. This was the more natural since they were then dealing with a course of three or four years ending at 14 or 15, and not with a longer course, as it will be, ending at 16. It is therefore appropriate that we should give local education authorities and voluntary bodies, who must now be looking forward to raising the age to 16, an

option to experiment with the age of transfer in the course of the wide experiments which are now taking place to reorganise secondary education generally. We do not now contemplate—nor, I think, ought we to contemplate it in advance of Lady Plowden's Report—any general change in the age of transfer. It follows that the actual provisions of Clause 1 are purely of an enabling character.
Perhaps I should now refer to subsection (2), which enables the Secretary of State to designate a school emerging from one of these proposals as either secondary or primary, as may be appropriate, notwithstanding the fact that an unconventional age of transfer is proposed. This is the administratively easier of two alternative proposals. The other way of doing it, to invent one or two hybrid classes of school, neither primary nor secondary, would have led to a much more complicated piece of legislation, and it was thought inappropriate to a limited number of experiments as proposed in the Bill. With this explanation, which I hope hon. Members have found sufficiently intelligible, I commend the Bill to the House.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: This is a small but important Bill and we welcome it. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not mind my saying that we pay tribute to his right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Education and Science because one of his last actions as Minister of Education was to introduce this Bill. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, the Bill incorporates two important reforms and removes a very unfair anomaly which was to the detriment of the parents of handicapped children.
We made repeated representations from this side of the House that this should be done, and we express pleasure that the Government are taking the opportunity of the extended Session to see that this anomaly is put right, but the position even when the Bill becomes law will not by any means be completely satisfactory. I have previously expressed great dissatisfaction about the present position in the matter of maintenance allowances for schoolchildren. We had the Weaver Report


on educational maintenance allowances, but unfortunately its recommendations were not fully accepted by the Government. Not only are the allowances inadequate but there are wide disparities between different parts of the country and it is particularly unfortunate that the Government now shield themselves behind the present block grant provisions and that many of the disparities are now disguised.
The proper step to take is to do as we suggest in "Signposts for the Sixties" and that is to see that maintenance allowances are provided by way of family allowances, with a steep increase in respect of children who remain at school after compulsory school-leaving age. This would directly help handicapped children. However, in their case unfair disparities do not only affect maintenance allowances. There may be some differences in the numbers of these children in different local authority areas, but no such variations can explain the present disparities in expenditure on their education. For example, expenditure on special schools per 1,000 of population is £979 in Liverpool but in Great Yarmouth it is as low as £142.
Whilst we welcome the Bill and what is being done, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's affection for laissez faire will not mean that he remains indifferent to these disparities, to the prejudice of many handicapped children. Moreover, whilst we welcome what is being done for handicapped children by means of the Bill, it must be appreciated that a good deal more needs to be done for them. As long as there is a waiting list of 13,000 for admission to special schools we cannot be satisfied with what is being done, though we recognise the improvements made in the past few years.
It is not only a question of accommodation. There is also the question of teachers. The National Advisory Council a few years ago set us a target of 10,000 qualified teachers for special schools, but this still remains a target and the acute shortage in teacher supply should not blind us to the special needs of these children. It is not only a question of special schools. There is a great need for specialist remedial teachers in the ordinary primary and secondary schools.
When we recognise the provisions which we are making for the children at special schools we should also have regard to the care and attention which should be given to these children when they leave school. Very often, because we do not pay sufficient care and attention to the problem of handicapped children when they leave school, a great deal of work done at school is lost.
Whilst, therefore, we welcome the Bill and congratulate the Government on taking this opportunity to right this anomaly, this only emphasises the need for much greater provision for handicapped children than we are providing and also directs our attention to the unevenness of the provision made throughout the country for these children. We equally welcome the other provisions of the Bill. We regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not made further provision. This would have made the Bill into a miscellaneous provisions Bill and we would have had many suggestions to make to him, but we recognise that for good Parliamentary reasons he has avoided that temptation.
We congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the provision to enable local authorities, who wish to experiment, to straddle the 11-plus gulf, but the House should clearly recognise that here we are doing two things. We are legitimising action which some local authorities have taken in defiance of the Ministry and in contravention of the 1944 Act, and we are removing an obstacle in the way of some local education authorities which have followed what they consider the best course in their determination—and I here use the words of "Signposts for the 'Sixties"—to reorganise the State secondary schools on comprehensive lines
in order to end the segregation by the 11-plus examination which is now almost universally condemned on educational as well as on social grounds …".
However much the right hon. and learned Gentleman may seek to disguise this, the Bill is a capitulation by the Government. After having fought a rearguard action against the reorganisation of schooling on comprehensive lines they are capitulating, because the purpose of the Bill is to facilitate the provision of comprehensive schooling for secondary school children.
It is true that, like the noble Lord, Lord Newton, in another place, the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to experimentation, but there is no word about experimentation in the Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows well enough that once the Bill becomes law there will be considerable pressure on him from many education authorities to provide for schools which will bridge this 11-plus gulf. This ought not to disturb him. The right hon. Gentleman makes so many outrageous political statements that when he makes a sensible statement it is often overlooked, but when he was questioned about the reorganisation of education at Question Time a few weeks ago he said:
I thought that the tripartite system had already broken down seven years ago when I was Minister before."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1964; Vol. 695, c. 577.]
The pity is that it has taken him seven years to tell us this and that during that time the Government have done so little about it.
I give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the credit, however, that he differs from his immediate predecessors and successors in that office in that politically he is more than anything else a Liberal and really believes in laissez fair. During the short time when he was at the Ministry, the local authorities had greater freedom than they had enjoyed before or have enjoyed since. I have pleasure in reminding him that seven years ago he was faced with a new approach to the reorganisation of secondary education on comprehensive lines, as proposed by the Leicestershire Education Authority, and it is to his credit that he did not sabotage that scheme or seek to frustrate or thwart it. But the trouble is—and we are paying for it now—that he was not more positive.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to have encouraged and approved what the Leicestershire Education Authority was proposing to do. I believe that strictly he was obliged to have done that, because the scheme was obviously a radical variation of the 1950 development plan, but what he did was to completely abrogate responsibility Pontius Pilate-wise; he said that the local education authority had no need

for his approval, had not sought it, and had not received it.

Mr. Hogg: Pontius Pilate did not succeed in evading his responsibility.

Mr. Willey: Neither will the right hon. and learned Gentleman, at least for a short time. As I say, we give credit to him for at least giving Leicestershire the opportunity. Leicestershire has set an example to other authorities in the provision of comprehensive secondary schooling.
However, at the same time, we have had an absence of leadership by the right hon. Gentleman. This was illustrated in the Leicestershire scheme in other ways. There was the provision for "high flyers", originally intended for the top 10 per cent., but in practice for much less. This was an open evasion of the law, contrary to the 1944 Act. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knew all about it but did nothing. I am not complaining about the Leicestershire scheme on the merits. On the contrary. The purpose of the Bill is to regularise the position. We are in favour of it. It provides the flexibility which ought to be provided at the age of transition, and we support authorities like the West Riding which are seeking new ways to organise comprehensive secondary schooling. We are delighted that there has been a massive revolt against the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his Department and that by this Bill he is now recognising it.
What is unfortunate, and what affects the present situation very much, is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has shown a lack of courage and initiative which has seriously diminished the standing and respect which he and his Department have in education at the moment. In fact, the Bill is seven years late.
I emphasise once more that we are encouraged by and support the action which many education authorities, not only the West Riding but Stoke, Croydon and many others of differing political complexion, are taking to organise expeditious ways of providing comprehensive secondary schooling. What is regrettable in this situation of revolutionary change—the Director of Education for Leicestershire described his own


proposals years ago as revolutionary—is that we have not had a more constructive and positive lead from the Minister and his Department. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems quite unaware of the obligation which Parliament placed upon them.
One has only to turn to Section 1 of the Education Act, 1944, to see that it is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's duty to
promote the education of the people of England and Wales and the progressive development of institutions devoted to that purpose, and to secure the effective execution by local authorities, under his direction and control, of the national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive education service in every area".
I shall not embarrass the Minister by emphasising control and direction. A Secretary of State who relied overmuch on control and direction would be as unfortunate as a Secretary of State who abnegated all responsibility. But what is wanted in the present situation is a sense of direction and guidance, and this is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is conspicuously failing to give.
We on this side accept and warmly support the present division of responsibility in education. It is a partnership, but it is an unfortunate partnership if the senior partner is a sleeping partner. The Government ought now to give forthright assistance to local authorities in their plans of reorganisation. What makes matters worse is that not only is there not any sense of direction forthcoming but the local education authorities carrying out these difficult tasks are not receiving any guidance, help or even information from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. At Question Time a few weeks ago, when my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) suggested that the Department should collate and render readily available information about the reorganisation of secondary education, the right hon. and learned Gentleman stubbornly rejected this suggestion. In fact, it is left to enterprising local authorities such as the London County Council to provide the information. The least the Secretary of State should be doing now is to help this reorganisation by providing such information as he has in his Department.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the Plowden Committee. He will realise as well as we do that it is

unfortunate that contemporaneously with this reorganisation we should be awaiting the results of the Committee's deliberations. I suggested to him that he might take the initiative and invite the Committee to offer us an interim report on the question we are discussing now, the age of transition. He refused to do so. I would respect the views of the Plowden Committee, but I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has no excuse for not taking any initiative. He should at least invite the view of the Plowden Committee on the possibility of providing an interim report.
Especially now, when we are discussing this Bill, we ought, if it be possible, to provide all the information and help we can give to create an informed opinion on the question of the age of transition. The idea of middle schools itself is not new. Not long ago, I saw a memorandum prepared by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones) making this very suggestion as far back as 1942. However, we have no accepted or clear view about the age range. There are different proposals from the West Riding, Stoke, Croydon and other authorities. The Association of Education Committees, apparently, leans towards the age of 12 as being the right one. It seems that the National Union of Teachers is equally divided on whether the age should be 11-plus or should be 12 or 13. There is every ground—I am with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in this—for pragmatic experiment, but there is also every ground for providing, as best we can, informed opinion and help.
If he stands by what he says at Question Time, the Secretary of State ought to be ready lo help those local education authorities which, because the tripartite system has broken down, are now facing the urgent problem of reorganisation. Instead, they are having to do as best they can without any advice or assistance from him. I have every sympathy with the plea of the National Union of Teachers that some order ought to be introduced into the administrative chaos which is rapidly developing. At least, we need some co-operation and guidance from the Minister and his Department.
The Secretary of State mentioned denominational schools. We know that the Bill was introduced without any reference to denominational schools. No inquiry


was made. It was introduced in panic because of the action which the West Riding was, apparently, ready to take regardless of anything which the Secretary of State might do. The Bill in itself is not sufficient to meet the problems of the voluntary schools. In any scheme for reorganisation, the voluntary schools will face real and special difficulties, and their position merits attention, consideration and advice from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. But this is what is lacking.
When we hear Lord Newton in another place and the right hon. and learned Gentleman here talking about experimentation, we get no hint of a proper sense of initiative, guidance and help. We are little further forward than we were at the time of the Government White Paper in 1958. Today above anything else, we want from the Government and from the right hon. and learned Gentleman a clear and explicit commitment to the reorganisation of secondary education on comprehensive lines. This we have not had, and herein lies the source of present difficulties.
The Bill is a small but important and valuable Measure. It will be a useful instrument for the next Government, because the next Government will be clearly committed to providing social justice for handicapped children and to providing an adequate and sufficient education for all those enjoying secondary schooling.

7.10 p.m.

Sir James Pitman: I should like shortly to support the Bill, and to say, although it may sound ridiculous, that it is possible that this could be a major revolution of very great importance to a large section of our people. I am speaking particularly on behalf of those who are conceptually weak. They do not have the conceptions in their head even if they have the vocabulary. It seems to me that this Bill opens up the possibility of special schools in that sense.
As I read the Measure, such a school could start from three and go on to 63; it has to be below one age and above another. This lack of conceptual ability is present throughout all the age groups and is of very great disadvantage to the

people concerned. There is an obligation on the State, and it is a duty of the teaching profession, to supply what have been the deficiencies in the environment of the child or even the adult.
I have here the statement from the National Union of Teachers to the Central Advisory Council for Education. It is dated June, so it is only one day out of date. I should like to read two paragraphs of it:
It is the child's linguistic environment which most profoundly affects the development of his measured ability and attainment. 'Primary Education' puts it in this way. 'The development of thought itself depends on a multiplication of names and a perception of categories and concepts they imply.' The whole chapter on language in this handbook takes on a new significance in the light of the findings of Douglas. Of all the cultural inequalities that widen the differences between child and child it is the richness or poverty of its early linguistic development which demands most attention. 'As the child progresses through school', says a National Foundation for Educational Research Report, 'initial differences related to differences in early and continuing cultural opportunity tend to be reinforced', and once again the findings of Douglas support this conclusion.
Paragraph 10 states:
The problem is particularly recognised in all countries … as, for example, in Israel, with its problems of the oriental Jewish immigrant, and in the U.S.A., with its negro"—
and I might add its Puerto Rican problem.
We cannot do better than draw the Council's attention to the article by Charles E. Silberman, Lecturer in Economics at Columbia University, in the May, 1964, issue of 'Harper's Magazine', which deals with the problem in both these countries.
I will send the Minister a copy of this.
It is very hard for us to recognise, but a substantial portion of young children in our schools, and consequently of adults, do not understand language. When the teacher says, "It is time to put your things away, to get on your coats and go home", they do not understand those words, although they act upon them. Throughout life they solve their communicative difficulties by watching what the effect of language is on people next to them. Their little beady eyes observe and copy the actions of others. In other words, they are, in effect, like a do" which sits down when one says "Sit down" to it. But that is not a linguistic message; that is a Pavlovian conditioning to the environment. The teacher is able


very easily to teach concepts provided he knows that that is the necessity.
By the Bill local authorities will be empowered to run special schools of this kind. As I see it, we learned our concepts accidentally by experiencing a number of situations. If the situation was big, or bigger, we had in situation 127 a bigger glass than another glass, accidentally in situation 254 a bigger piece of bread than another piece of bread, than a bigger boy or a smaller boy. These are different situations which we observed and memorised and from which we analysed the common factor of this concept of one thing being bigger than another. An adult in Tokyo would use a different word from the word a German would use in Berlin or a Frenchman in Paris, but in England we use our word. A child is lucky if an adult gives him as a catalyst the word "bigger" in all those situations because that helps the child enormously in forming the concept as well as knowing the vocabulary with which to operate that concept in one's mind.
In the graphic arts and in the schools the process need not be accidental; it can be planned and deliberate. Instead of being situation 204 and then not repeated and reinforced until situation 500, it can be picture 1, picture 2, picture 3 and picture 4, and always the word will be "bigger" and Uncle will not come in and say "'greater" instead of "bigger" and thereby cause a lack of repetition and of reinforcement and introduce a new factor, one of confusion.
In the schools we have this problem for a limited number of people, but they are very precious human beings. Their potentialities are, as far as we may expect, as great as those of anybody else, but they have been handicapped, and subsequently are handicapped throughout their lives, by the fact that they have not had the initial teaching in the concepts which are the basis of communication. In the beginning was the word "logos" and that means "the concept". It was given a different ticket in Tokyo, Paris and Berlin, but the concept is the same where-ever man communicates with man.
Now that we have segregated the children with frictional difficulties in reading from those with a lack of conceptualisation, local authorities will be able under the Bill to test them to find out

whether it is lack of conceptualisation which is holding them back. It is possible even at the age of three, which is when such teaching should begin, to find out whether children are lacking in this opportunity of situational backgrounds and so of concepts. We can test even better and more successfully at later ages, but the real issue is to find out those children who are thus suffering. Under this Bill it seems to me that the local authorities will be able to find out and identify the very young children, and even the older people, and to set about giving them that opportunity of living which comes from man being a communicative animal.
Man differs from the dog in that he understands the generality of concept of the word "sit" as an action. He understands the generality of concept of the word "down" as a preposition in a direction. That is mankind's enormous difference from the animal kingdom. A dog sits down when one says "sit down", but there is no conceptualisation passing, only a response to a Pavlovian conditioning.
May we hope that local authorities will use the Bill in the way that it can be used. I think that we should welcome it very warmly.

7.20 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Bath (Sir J. Pitman), if only to say that I regret that this is, I believe, the last time when he will take part in an education debate in this House. He will not be coming to the next Parliament. Those of us who have followed education debates in the House for the last 15 or 20 years know the tremendous contribution he has made to them. I will not follow the particular point he raised. I feared for a moment that he wished to make all our little children into Pavlovian dogs with a series of conditioned reflexes, but he escaped from it towards the end of his speech and I followed with great interest his description of the problem which he drew to the attention of the Secretary of State.
I raised with the then Minister of Education, four or five years ago, the anomaly which is to be put right by Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill. Since then, the problem has been raised at conferences of education associations. The


difficulty has always been that of waiting for a Bill into which to put the reform, and I think that the Secretary of State was wise in suggesting that Parliament should one day find a method of doing what the whole House wants done without waiting for the procedure of getting together a lot of little reforms to put into a Bill. It always seems to me that we could get a single-Clause, non-contentious Bill through the House much more easily than Departments fear would be the case.
Parents receive a maintenance grant—subject to an income test—if their children stay on at school after school leaving age. The grant may not be big enough, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) pointed out, but it has certainly improved tremendously since some of us persuaded the Government to set up the Weaver Working Party. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will take the opportunity of the fact that Clauses 2 and 3 deal with maintenance grants to note that whilst some local authorities are paying more than the Weaver Report recommended, and some are paying the scale, that some still pay less.
The Weaver scale has now become national policy. I hope that the Secretary of State will take the opportunity to have a word with those local authorities which are still too mean to pay adequate maintenance grants to the poor children who stay on after school leaving age. I hope that any councillors who read HANSARD will make sure that their own local authorities come up to scratch on this very important matter.
However, as the Secretary of State pointed out, if the child is mentally or physically handicapped and has to attend a special school, the school-leaving age for such a child is taken as 16 years. It was the parent of such a child who brought to my notice some years ago the simple fact that there was no maintenance allowance for the child between the ages of 15 and 16.
We do not make a maintenance allowance for a normal child in order to compensate for loss of earnings. It would be a much bigger allowance if we did in these days, when youngsters are paid so much for leaving school. The allowance is meant to help parents keep their

children at school during the most expensive, non-earning period of the life of youngsters.
The only difference between a normal and an abnormal child of 15, since neither is earning, is that the parents of the handicapped child will have greater expenses to meet than the parents of the normal child. Parents of abnormal children find that they are far more costly to keep than normal children. Sadly enough, there is often no prospect of such a child ever becoming a wage earner. I am therefore delighted on all counts, to think that now such children are to receive a maintenance grant. I share the view of the Secretary of State that we should have given it to them years ago.
I congratulate the Government on this reform, which will help some hundreds of Britain's most hard-pressed mothers. It is only one of a series of useful little Measures which the Government have brought in over the past years to help the parents of handicapped children which I have not time to mention.
Nevertheless there is much more yet to be done for the handicapped child. Anyone who serves on a local education authority knows that every authority in the country has lists of children who have been recommended for special education and treatment but who are unable to get it because either an appropriate school simply does not exist or because it is overcrowded and has long waiting lists.
Even more difficult is the problem of the ineducable child. I think that the greatest tragedy that can happen to a family is when the local medical officer reports that a child cannot go to any school, not even a special school. Then there is also the problem of what happens when a handicapped child leaves the special school only to find that there is no work for them. I hope that one day we shall have a full debate on the problems of special schools and handicapped children so that we may appreciate how much splendid work we have done since the war but how much still remains to be done.
I share the view of the hon. Member for Bath that Clause 1 is very important. I have watched the transformation of the Tory Party's attitude towards education over the last 40 years with amazement and delight. They have climbed


on to educational bandwagon after educational bandwagon. I remember their conversion to "further secondary education for all". I remember their conversion to the ending of all-age schools—I think that it was the last Minister of Education but two who announced that epoch-making discovery. They were also gradually won over to adequate maintenance grants, although we had to persuade them to adopt the report of their own Weaver Working Party.
These are just a few of the education reforms they have slowly come round to accepting. Now Clause 1 suggests they are not quite certain whether or not to fight the election on the battle cry of "Hands off the grammar schools!" They dare not say "Hands off Eton and Harrow!" because that would not win votes. They may come out and say, as they did when they said, "We are for social services", "We are the party for experiment in selection at 11-plus—the party for comprehensive secondary education". I have the idea that the cry of "Hands off the grammar schools" will last for just one more election, in spite of Clause 1.
In Clause 1, the party opposite are adding another nail to the coffin of tripartism and already the Secretary of State, chief of many Ministers of Education, is converted—or seems to be. The National Union of Teachers in its evidence to the Plowden Committee, has come down on the side of ending the 11-plus in favour of the establishment of comprehensive schools where practicable.
That is a real change of attitude of the N.U.T., which has been singularly backward about this aspect of education reform—singularly so, because it has been the pioneer in most education advances. Indeed, the N.U.T. now regrets that Britain is coming to accept a comprehensive system of secondary education only when the moment of doing it will be bedevilled by the fact that it has built all its secondary schools on the basis of tripartism and when many local authorities will, therefore, find it difficult to do even the experimenting allowed under Clause 1 because of the physical nature of the buildings.
It is a simple fact that everywhere in the country Britain's singular and

lamentable contribution to education theory—that one can divide children into three groups, 20 per cent. academic, 10 per cent. technical and 70 per cent. the rest which one does not want to say anything about—has been torn to shreds by every local authority. No one except a backwoodsman believes that one can diagnose accurately at 11-plus a child's ability to profit by education to the age of 18 or 20. No local authority has a completely tripartite system of secondary education. Even the most conservative—and I use that word with a small "c" because some of the Labour authorities are conservative about this—have transfer at 13 or 16 or the interchange of children constantly between various types of secondary schools. Nearly every local authority has some bilateral schools—technical grammar or technical modern or grammar modern. Not all but most of them are providing a fifth form in secondary modern schools. Some are even providing a sixth form or, if they do not provide a sixth form, are making it easy for able children from the fifth form to transfer to the sixth form of a grammar school.
Then we have experiments like those at Leicester and West Riding. The West Riding experiment is the one on which Clause 1 is tailored. In Leicester there are two kinds of secondary schools—a kind of junior secondary school and a senior secondary school—and in West Riding there is almost a new kind of middle school between primary and secondary.
There are progressive authorities, not all of them Labour, which have boldly set up comprehensive schools, transferring all the children at 11-plus to the nearest secondary school, which offers to an able child everything that a grammar school offers and also to the not so able child many more opportunities than it would have had in the secondary modern school.
There are authorities like London which compromise. London rightly boasts of the fine achievements of its comprehensive schools; but they are not completely comprehensive. Some 11 to 12 per cent. of London's children still go to selected grammar schools, but even in London and certainly in Sunderland, where I visited an excellent comprehensive school three or four


months ago, when the choice is given to parents to choose between selection at 11-plus with the possibility of winning a place at a grammar school or simply to the nearest comprehensive school, parents are choosing to send their children to the comprehensive school. In the case of Sunderland, of this year's 250 11-plus intake in the area dealt with by that comprehensive school about 98 per cent. of the children opted to go to the comprehensive school rather than sit for grammar school examinations. Now, West Riding is asking not merely whether it is right to select at 11-plus but whether it is right to transfer children from primary to secondary education at 11-plus. This is much more serious, in my opinion, than the question of whether we should select at 11-plus.
About the only thing that the 1944 Education Act said about the form of education was that primary education should begin at the age of five—children must be sent to school at the age of five—that secondary education should be provided separately from primary education, and that the transfer should be, as the Minister said, between the ages of ten and a half and twelve. There was not a word incidentally about tripartitism in that Act.
The Minister has never had power to prevent experimentation in kinds of secondary education. He could frown on it, as he did or his predecessors did, but he is now relaxing the frown and even smiling. In Clause 1 he goes much further. The age of transfer itself is thrown into the melting pot. I regard this as an important innovation that the House does well to look at. If hon. Members believe in selection of children for different kinds of secondary education, obviously selection can be more effective and accurate at the age of 13 than at the age of 11. The common entrance examination is taken at about the age of 13. Incidentally, it is a much more exacting examination than that of selection at 11-plus. The ablest children in the prep school have to work hard, and there is no royal road for the middle-class child who wants to go to the rich man's public school.
Selection at the end of prep school can be much more accurate because it

is two years later than selection at 11-plus, but the real issue of Clause 1 goes beyond even the question of selection. I believe that all our concepts of education are at present in the melting pot. Old barriers, the least defensible of them the barrier between public and private education, must, I think, go in these modern days. The raising of the school-leaving age to 16, when it comes, may demand an alteration in the structure of education as revolutionary as the changes which will take place in the content and quality of secondary education when all our children are being educated to 16.
To carry out Crowther would be a revolution; to carry out Newsom for the average child would be a revolution. The Plowden Committee will examine, among other things, the question which is posed by Clause 1: what should be the age of transfer from primary to secondary education? I believe that it will also examine the question of selection at 11-plus. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North in his suggestion that we ought to formulate our own decisions on this question of transfer from primary to secondary now. I think that we ought to wait until the Plowden Committee has reported. It would be rather impertinent to anticipate Plowden.

Mr. Willey: The two points that I made were, first, that we should ask the Plowden Committee whether it would be prepared to give us an interim report, in other words, its opinion on this subject, and, second, that those authorities making a decision on this should have all the guidance and informed opinion that is available.

Dr. King: I am always prepared to listen to my very good friend on the Front Bench. I was coming to that. He argued that one way by which we could get out of the dilemma would be by asking Plowden to anticipate its own findings on this issue and whether it would make this the first remit from the Minister. I think that it would be folly to anticipate the findings of Plowden on this, but I would nevertheless emphasise one or two points.
I heartily agree with the Secretary of State when he expressed the suspicion that many of our educational reforms


had been carried out for non-educational reasons. Almost every educational advance has been for a bad reason. We first had the expansion of secondary and technical education because Lord Haldane discovered that Germany was a military force and we had to educate Britain to cope with the scientific and economic might of Germany. The whole theory of the tripartite system of education depends on the buildings which existed in 1944. We have made educational decisions on financial grounds—the number of teachers that we can afford—rather than on any educational basis. I hope that no one will use the elasticity of the powers that Clause 1 gives to the age of transfer to transfer children from any other age than that which the law at present lays down unless the reason is an educational one. Merely to transfer from primary to secondary because the building suits, or because it would be cheaper to have teachers this way than the other is the kind of reason which I hope will not enter into the mind of any local authority. If Clause 1 comes into operation, I hope that it will be for educational reasons and not for administrative convenience.
I am delighted that there is to be no tampering with the age of entry. The glory of British education is that ever since 1880 every British child has gone to school at the age of 5. Indeed, we have slipped back since my childhood. A reading of the Secretary of State's own pamphlets on primary education shows that thirty of forty years ago most of our children were getting to school between 4 and 5, but there are children in England today who do not go to school until the term after they are 5. I hope that some day when we consider this age of entry we shall endeavour—and we do not need an Act of Parliament to do it—to see that every child gets into school at the beginning of the year in which his fifth birthday comes. Infant education has been compulsory since 1880.
I would say, as I have said before, that infants' schools have played a great part in the development of British education. Many of the experiments in freedom, in pedagogy, have taken place in infants' schools. The broad aims of the infants' schools are pretty clear and I think that

I will carry every hon. Member with me when I say that the infants' teachers know the purpose of infant education and are carrying it out magnificently. In the same way, junior education presents a definite picture. School from 8 to 11 has a sense of unity and purpose with which there should be no tampering unless the reasons are really valid and substantial. As was suggested in another place, it may be one of the reasons for the downward trend of the age of puberty.
It may be that as we raise the secondary leaving age to 16, we shall have to reconstruct education with infant education from 5 to 7, with nursery school education before that as soon as we can get it and afford it, and with junior education from 8 to 11 or 12. The Association of Education Committees suggests 12, but for a bad reason. I am certain that if junior education were freed from the bugbear of selection at 11-plus, it would have new worlds to conquer and a great expansion and development. The Clause makes experiments in that direction possible.
I said that I hoped that the reasons would be valid, and I say that because I am distressed by the attitude of the Association of Education Committees to the subject of the age of transfer. We need more men teachers, but the A.E.C., making its recommendations to the Plowden Committee, mixed up teacher supply with education advantages. It put forward what I regard as a bastard theory. It suggests that it would be good to raise the age of leaving primary school to 12 or 13—it finally settles in favour of 12—and at the other end to raise the entry into school to 6, on the ground that the older children in a school are, the greater the status of the school and the more attraction it has for men.
I must protest with all the force I can command at this concept that the status of a school depends on its size, or on the age of the children in it, or that there is something more dignified about a man teacher than about a woman teacher. I thought that we had ended the hang-over of sex inequality in education and that we were moving away from the concept that the smaller the children, the more there could be packed into a class and the less the teacher need be paid, and the lower his status. If we are


to change the school transfer age, let it not be tied up with the question of attracting men, especially if the argument for attraction is fallacious.
I will enter one last caveat. I am all for experimentation, but the teaching profession is afraid that too much experimentation can lead to fragmentation. Families in Britain are mobile. When a father and mother leave one area to go to another, they do not want to find a system of education so different that the child is handicapped in the transfer. This is why I am glad that the Minister himself must be satisfied about the reasons which prompt any change in the age of transfer. This is why I sympathise with the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North. We do not want direction of education by the Minister from the centre. We want this marriage of local and central authority to continue in what I regard as a very pleasant and happy state.
However, if we are so afraid of uniformity that we go to the opposite extreme and have too much variety in the system of education as between one part of England and another, children will be deprived, especially those who have to move, of equality of opportunity. Leaving one area for another is a trying enough experience in a child's educational career, but to leave one system of education for an entirely different system could be devastating for the child transferred.
I hope that the Bill has an easy passage. We could have had a much bigger Bill, but this is not the political or Parliamentary time for it. I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has brought in a useful reform in Clauses 2 and 3 which rights an injustice and I hope that the authorities will use the powers of Clause 1 with care.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Enoch Powell: I intervene in the debate only momentarily to support the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) in his disagreement, for it was a real disagreement, with his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). Over the past years, it has undoubtedly been found that the time span 10½ to 12 is too narrow and constrictive

as a definition of the outer limits of the age of transfer from primary to secondary education. We now know that the definition of "junior pupil" and "senior pupil" in the definition Clause of the Education Act, 1944, has proved too narrow for our purposes, and it is therefore right and necessary to do what the Bill does, to make it possible for organisations to be brought into existence, and for new schools to be built, in the light of ages of transfer which lie outside those limits—subject to the agreement of my right hon. and learned Friend.
In other words, in the words of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, there is ground for experiment. It is, however, quite wrong and contradictory, having said, and rightly said, that there is ground for wider experiment than the existing law permits, for him to complain that the Government and my right hon. and learned Friend do not give clear and explicit guidance on the reorganisation of secondary education, and indeed of education generally.
The hon. Member for Itchen touched on one, and perhaps the most important, of the reasons why it would be premature at this stage to attempt to lay down such clear and explicit guidance from the centre. It is not only that the Plowden Committee is in the earlier stages of its work. It is mainly that the extension of the school age, both through the raising of the minimum leaving age to 16 and through the continual increase in the size of fifth and sixth forms, which is one of the most encouraging and important developments of recent years, opens out a field for the rethinking of the structure of our school education on which we are now only beginning to enter.
It would be quite mistaken at this stage, at the moment when we are rightly making it possible to experiment with more freedom by loosening the statutory framework, to say at the same time that we ought to be coming forward with a clear and explicit policy from the centre.
Having said that, and having with every hon. Member who has spoken supported my right hon. and learned Friend in his loosening of the bonds of the 1944 Act, I am afraid that I must accuse the hon. Member for Itchen himself of an inconsistency in the extraordinary passage in which he spoke of the Conservative


Party getting on to the educational band wagon. As he went on to detail the major advances in education over the last 50 years, it was remarkable that every one of them had been introduced by a Conservative Government and Conservative Minister of Education. It is an extraordinary band wagon that one starts rolling oneself in order to get on to it. In fact, throughout the whole of this period the Conservative Party has been the pioneer in the great advances in education which the hon. Gentleman detailed. It is a pity that he should have fallen into this contradiction when he was rightly convicting his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North of a less serious one.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) raised the question of experimentation and how the Government can assist change. I propose to deal with that in a moment, so perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not come to it straight away.
When the right hon. Gentleman indulged in party polemics at the end of his speech, he was unfair in regarding the 1944 Act as a Conservative one. I had always thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) played at least some part in that legislation. As my right hon. Friend is retiring at the end of this Parliament, I think that it is only fair to put that on the record.

Mrs. Eirene White: The 1918 Act, the other great Act, was also the product of a war-time Coalition Government and not of a Conservative Government.

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend is correct.
I should like to concentrate my remarks on Clause 1—not that I regard Clause 2 as unimportant. Indeed, I am sure that we all have tragic cases brought to our notice by parents who have children who come under the category of Clause 2.
My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton), who has a great interest in this matter, has also reminded me that in Leeds, part of which I represent, it is considered such an important question that the Leeds Trades Council has set up a committee

to deal with the problem of mentally handicapped children and to try to force the Government to deal with the Scott Report, which it says has been pigeonholed. The council feels so strongly about this that a petition is being raised in the area to try to force the Government's hand.

Clause 1, at line 2, refers to the establishing of a new county school and in line 3 there is another reference to a new school. Is there some legal reason for this? Does a school which is in existence become a new school, perhaps by altering the age range? I am wondering whether there is any underlying reason for the use of the word "new", twice in the Clause, and in the Minister's speech.

Mr. Hogg: It is for the purpose of experimentation. There is no legal reason for it, but there is a political one. There is no necessity for it legally, although the Section 13 procedure which is involved is concerned mainly with closures and openings of schools.

Mr. Rees: To me the great significance of Clause 1 is that it will allow yet other changes to be made based on the comprehensive principle.
I should like to say a word about the bipartite or tripartite system. In another place the Minister of State said that the basic reasoning of the Hadow Report and the 1944 Act was now being questioned. I query the use of the word "now". The questioning of the tripartite or bipartite system has been going on for many years, and in my view was wrong from the beginning. It was a great pity that the arguments about three types of children were enshrined in some sort of educational canon law. As the word "now" was used by the Minister responsible for schools, I draw to the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman a speech that was made by the Minister of State who is now responsible for higher education.
Speaking to the Education Committee Conference on the 5th July, last year, he said:
Let me assure you that neither I nor my colleagues in the Government are wedded to any particular pattern of secondary school organisation; none of us believes in pre-war terms that children can be sharply differentiated


into various types or levels of ability; and I certainly would not wish to advance the view that the bipartite system, as it is often called, should be regarded as the right and usual way of organising secondary education, compared with which everything else must be stigmatised"—
that is the word he used—
as experimental".
More recently, in fact on 26th June, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
It was already generally accepted doctrine seven years ago that the old tripartite division of secondary schools … corresponded to no sensible division of ability amongst pupils.
The Minister responsible for education in another place believes that it is only now that the tripartite system is being questioned. He is mistaken, and I think that we should have the Government's view on this.
Now I take up the use of the word "experimental" by the right hon. Gentleman and also, mistakenly—in my view—by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King). In another place the Minister said on 9th April:
The Bill will allow experimental bridges to be thrown across the gulf."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 9th April, 1964; Vol. 257, c. 262.]
Yet the Minister responsible for higher education regards the word "experimental" as a stigma, judging from what I quoted a moment ago.
There is a world of difference between the two. There is a world of difference in approach. If we regard the existing tripartite system, however modified, as the norm, everything else is an experiment which may or may not come off. What is the Government's policy with regard to this. In a recent debate the Parliamentary Secretary talked about the dangers of being dogmatic in education. I agree with him, but the trouble is that if one supports the existing set up, the established system, one is regarded as not being dogmatic. One becomes dogmatic only when one is trying to effect some sort of change.
I respect the views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and of the right hon. Gentleman about the tripartite system, but in my view theirs is not the general view of the party opposite. It is not a very rewarding exercise, but recently I have ploughed through various

local government election addresses, and even Parliament election addresses. I found that time and again it was said that we on this side of the House wanted to destroy this system; that we were against the tripartite system.
I specifically exempt from that the leader of the Tory group on the City of Leeds Education Commitee. Whatever differences he has with our side of the council chamber, the arguments are carried on and couched in terms which to my mind show that both sides of the Chamber are looking for reasonable forms of change. It is not enough to have a change of heart at the top. We have heard this afternoon that it is a partnership between the central Government and local government. There must be reasonable views at the local level as well.
I return to Clause 1 of the Bill. This will allow other arrangements for primary and secondary to be made. In my view the principle one will be schools which will take children from nine-plus to 13-plus. It will make viable a middle school. This is something for which, in a small way, I have worked for many years. It is one reason why I welcome the Bill in general, and this Clause in particular.
I am prepared to be dogmatic about this, after a good many years working in schools. It is wrong at any one time to try to sort children out into one category or another. Not that children do not differ in ability; goodness knows, they do. But whatever method one uses, and at whatever age one says, "This is what this child will do in the future", one is bound to be wrong. I believe dogmatically, therefore, in the comprehensive principle. But I do not believe dogmatically in the form of carrying it out. It must be carried out in a wide variety of ways.
I would like to bring in a personal note involving the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I was once involved in a by-election in which I was unsuccessful, in 1959, in a suburban area near London, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman came to speak at a political meeting in the school where I worked—the school that I had attended, that my wife had attended and to which all my friends went. I was responsible for the sixth form, university entrants, and so on. I


was told afterwards that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had challenged my arguments on that occasion, and had said that I was a chap who wanted to destroy all this. But my argument then was precisely the same as that which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been using this evening. I am grateful when one sinner repenteth.

Mr. J. C. Jennings: I am following the hon. Member's arguments about selection very closely. Does he reject selection altogether, at any stage in the child's career? If he does, how does he apportion a child's abilities and say that one child will go into the grammar school stream and another into the secondary school stream, and so on?

Mr. Rees: All I am arguing is that this should be done within the context of one school, so that changes can take place.

Mr. Jennings: By examination?

Mr. Rees: If necessary, in certain subjects. The point is that if the break is made at 11-plus we are telling a child that a decision has been made. That is what is put on the piece of paper that the parents receive.
I feel very strongly about this. Perhaps there is also a psychological reason behind it. I failed the 11-plus, although I passed it the year afterwards, because another school was built. Subsequently I spent ten years at university. Can anybody blame me for thinking that the bloke who told me that I had failed was wrong? One swallow does not make a summer, but I am very sceptical about selection at 11 years of age. I believe in selection, but in my view it must be done in the context of one school.
There was a sneaking feeling on my part—I am sure that I was wrong—that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had come to this political meeting realising that education was an important issue. Perhaps he had not read what my argument was, or perhaps he was deploying his argument in terms of electoral advantage. I acquit him of this, however, and I feel that the fact that what he said was wrong five years ago is now being put forward by him shows that there has been a change of mind on his part.
I make no complaint about it, but the odd thing is that the right hon. and

learned Gentleman went to a relatively non-selective school for children and young people between the ages of 13 and 18. That is excellent, but I would have thought that the fact that I was putting forward on that occasion an argument for a school other than a very selective one for the ages from 13 to 18, would have been very pleasant from his point of view, because imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I was simply arguing that a school for children between the ages of 13 and 18 provided a much better unit than did one for children between the ages of 11 and 18. I still believe so.

Mr. Hogg: I must correct the hon. Member. The school which I attended was highly selective.

Mr. Rees: We could argue about this a great deal. I prefer to believe that the Common Entrance Examination is far more flexible, perhaps in terms of the social background of people, than is the 11-plus selection examination. I go so far as to say that if, as is suggested, at 11-plus we are sorting out people who will pass the General Certificate Examination—that is the object of the 11-plus examination—yet it is not what we are trying to do in the Common Entrance Examination, very sensibly.
In the context of examination successes overall—and I am not playing down the high academic successes of certain public schools—the ordinary level G.C.E. has a higher rate of pass at grammar schools than is the case in the general run of public schools. I do not put forward the argument that grammar schools are superior to public schools, but we are telling the child who enters a grammar school, "You are selected as suitable for an intellectual type of education".

Mr. Jennings: The hon. Member constantly refers to the process of selection. That is what is behind our whole system and method, and our feeling about change. He keeps talking about the fact that at 11-plus a child is told that he is destined to take the G.C.E. Let us be quite plain about this. In a comprehensive system of education, at what stage in a child's career will he be told that he will take the G.C.E.—and how?

Mr. Rees: It would depend upon different subjects. This is becoming a pedagogic argument. In certain subjects one would have to begin to form a judgment


at 11 or 12 years of age, but in other subjects it would not worry me if no attempt was made until 14 or 15 years of age. This is not the time to deploy arguments about the weaknesses in our concept of intelligence. I am in favour of the able child. I feel strongly about the great need of this country for able children. I am simply saying that I regard our present system as the wrong way of going about selection.
I now turn to a subject which was touched upon by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey)—the question of the communication of ideas. One of the great problems in modern life is the problem of communication in industry and in other human activities. A similar problem exists in education. How do the people in the schools—administrators and teachers—find out what is going on in other schools in other areas? At the moment we are told that 90 out of our 140 local education authorities are investigating change. The result of this Bill will be to spark off even more investigation. But in my view it is not good enough that these discussions should take place only at inspectorate level. We know that they go on. The inspectorate gathers a great deal of knowledge about different parts of the country, and we teachers pick up rumours that the chief inspector and other inspectors are discussing proposals with the director of education.
This is not good enough. Discussions must go on, but they should be wider. It is not good enough that directors should have their own pet schemes, some of which are first-rate and some of which could lead to a great deal of trouble. I put forward the plea that this is a political matter. I am astonished when people say that this should be kept out of politics. If ever there was a political argument, this is it. People should discuss these matters on the basis of informed opinion. The trouble is that there is nothing to work on. At the very least, without the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Department deciding or commenting upon anything, some sort of information should be available.
What have been the results of the London County Council scheme? What have been the results of the changes that

have gone on in Leicestershire. Is it perfect? Are there no weaknesses in the plan? The Leicesteshire experiment it seems is excellent, but we have to read the Sunday newspapers, and the odd articles in various publications, in order to gain any information about it. It would not be canon law; it would not mean that because the right hon. and learned Gentleman has commented on a scheme that it should be regarded as the right way to proceed. But there should be some method by which people can talk intelligently about the various methods of selection, and schemes of secondary education.
The whole question of selection has changed over the years. I am going to be personal again. This is very much a personal matter for many people. My father passed the 11-plus under the original 1906 arrangement and then, by some curious alchemy, he and most of his friends went to work in the pit. In my day, too, the result of my examination made a difference—it decided my future. I am not prepared to have my children's future determined by what is written on a simple piece of paper at the age of 10-plus.
This is a political matter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will find that this argument seems to be far more important in areas where his party has the greatest support. By the very nature of social change they tend to be the people, on the whole, who went to grammar schools, and they are determined to see that their children have a similar sort of education. Most of them, sensibly enough, admit that they are not arguing that their children are all geniuses.
I come back to the point about the public schools. The civilised factor about public schools which has struck me since I came in contact with them—or rather with the people who went to them—is that, unlike some of our grammar schools, they do not set such great store by academic success. To my mind that is a much more civilised attitude. To return to this Bill and this Clause and the question of the schools for children from 9 to 13. Are there problems which we can face before these schools are set up? It is put to me strongly by colleagues, not of my political belief, who teach in the traditional 11 to 18 schools


that to make the break at 13-plus will profoundly affect G.C.E. successes at 16. It will give only three years in the grammar school and that would be fatal. Many people in grammar schools are seriously worried about the effect on science and language teaching. They say they must have the full five years. Is this is? Is there no experience on which we can draw? Must it all be a leap in the dark? People feel strongly about this and that is why many of them disagree with my educational views which they say will destroy the institution which has developed over the years.
When I asked at a number of schools, the argument was put to me—now I am still acting as a devil's advocate—that there will be a shortage of trained staff for the middle schools. There is a shortage it is said of teachers in higher education anyway; they are being funnelled off to teacher training colleges, to colleges of advanced technology and universities. The highly qualified teacher wishes to teach the sixth form. He will not get sixth form work in the middle school. To a large degree it is a problem of salaries. The extra money comes from sixth form teaching. I ask that some consideration be given to the needs of the middle school. With full pre-consideration, they could, in my view, lead to a profound and valuable change in some parts of British education. In my view, this question of middle school salaries will have to be discussed at Burnham. It should loom large in the salary discussions which are now taking place. There is a lot to be said for staff colleges where this sort of thing could be discussed. If the Army, the Navy and the Air Force can have staff colleges to discuss major issues, the teaching profession, in its widest sense, should also have them.
There is a point of constituency interest that I should like to raise. There are some schemes, which are similar to the Leicestershire scheme, I suppose, where the boy or girl will go from 9 to 13-plus and if the parents then wish, and the child wishes, go on to a grammar school from 14 to 18, similar to the public schools. I am told that in some schemes unless they opt to stay until 18 they stay in the existing school up to 15. It has been put to me by headmasters that this is fatal in working-class areas

where lads of 13-plus are not in a position to move on to the grammar school—not because their parents are wicked people, but because they are paid on hourly wages and do not know what the future will be. It may also be that there is no tradition of university or college. If the lad goes home at 13-plus and asks to stay at school until he is 18, more often than not the answer is likely to be "No". If the lad however stays on until he is 16 he often finds himself doing five subjects at O-level. He is more mature than the average child and often he makes the decision himself that he will go on for two years in the sixth form and on to university. This is a social factor which ought to be taken into account. In general, however, I welcome the middle school idea.
I wish to raise with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the question of parental choice. We all know that in Section 76 of the Act it says that the wishes of the parents have to be taken into account. We also know that they are not. We know—at least I know—that in answering a Question which I put to him last week, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
Authorities generally do not allocate pupils to different types of secondary education to meet the wishes of parents …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1964, Vol. 697, c. 104.]
During the Faversham by-election I was astonished to find that the right hon. Gentleman said
We"—
that is the party opposite—
will not force other people's children into schools against their parents' wills.
That is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. It is done now. I have no choice in respect of my lad. The right hon. Gentleman is arguing on a political occasion that there is now parental choice. How else can one interpret his words? I challenge him, in order to get this clear. On reading this, many of my friends believed it. One got in touch with the local authority and said that the Minister responsible for education was saying that now there was parental choice and that the wicked Labour Party would end it. What was in the mind of the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he said this? The only way one can get parental choice is by some sort of comprehensive system.
There is also the question of where the local education authority comes into the picture—

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of parental choice, may I ask whether it is not true to say that very often the choice is restricted by the catchment area determined by the local authority? Even where there are parents in a catchment area who wish to send their children out of the area the local authority refuses to give the parent a choice.

Mr. Rees: That is a different question, the question of catchment areas arises in terms of similar types of schools. I am making the case in respect of the 11-plus examination and selection.
In the same speech the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
We will not force children into schools against the wish of the local social democracy. … 
That was a bit of a Freudian slip, the reference to social democracy, but those are the words used. The party of the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not go against the wishes of the local authorities who desire to change their type of secondary education. There is no other way to read what he said. What does that mean? What of the plans being actively discussed politically in the area of the Greater London Council, where the borough councils have responsibility for secondary education, and all sorts of exciting ideas are being discussed? People there read this speech and took it to mean, as I did, that the Minister is saying that he will not go against the wishes of local social democracy That is what he said at Faversham and I can only assume that it is correct.
I mentioned earlier a by-election in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman attacked me for views which he now holds. During the Faversham by-election we find him with some sort of split political personality. On the first occasion I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, but now, in my view, the right hon. and learned Gentleman says one thing as Minister of Education and another when there is political

advantage to be gained from it. We were rather cross about this at home and we got crosser about it every day. Then on 23rd June the right hon. and learned Gentleman made a speech to the Association of Education Committees. This was a different right hon. Gentleman. He said:
Each side, I think, in national and local politics owes an obligation, so far as he can, so to operate the party battle which is essential for the continuance of our democratic life that public advantage emerges.
What public advantage emerges from the statement I quoted which was made in the Faversham by-election? His own lapses, I suppose, are responsible for the inclusion of the phrase, "So far as he can". It seems that the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot.
Watching his performance in education, on the one hand belligerent and aggressive and on the other humble and objective—the two sides of the character of the right hon. and learned Gentleman—I wondered what it reminded me of. I cast my mind back to the secondary schools in which I worked, I looked through the various Reports by Hadow, Spens and so on and looked at the psychological sections. I consulted the journals. I read book after book and found that the hallmark of the adolescent is a personality that fluctuates between aggressiveness and humility. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is the essential adolescent. He has the doubtful distinction of being the first adolescent to be the Minister responsible for education while still actually adolescing. There is no other way in which to interpret the speech he made at Faversham.
He made two statements. He said that those whose children are coming up to the 11-plus can operate parental choice, but they cannot. He also stated to local authorities that he will not interfere with local social democracy. Is this the case? He says one thing education-wise and one thing political-wise. This does not help people who rightly or wrongly feel dogmatically both ways. The job of the Government is to play these things down so that changes can take place when people themselves have cooled down and are able to look at these matters objectively. We should not force these things on to people. While I wholeheartedly believe the Bill is a step forward, I wish


that the right hon. and learned Gentleman responsible for it would realise his wider educational responsibilities on political occasions.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. J. C. Jennings: In part I welcome this Bill. I am not so happy about Clause 1, but I think that the other Clauses are admirable.
I should like to follow the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) on the question of selection. I may have something to say about that later. We must realise that in education we are living in an age of transition. It has been said from both sides of the House that the 1944 Act, whether it is regarded as a tripartite or bipartite system, is dead. It is certain that whatever we think of the 1944 Act now it performed a revolutionary purpose in our system and it gave us what we always needed in education, a mixed system. That is what I always want to see. I never want to see our educational system in a straitjacket. There is room for experiment, yes, and that is the value of this Bill.
In the uncertainty and in the controversial thinking on education which is going on in all parts of the country and in this House it is of paramount importance that we should recognise that a new look at the whole system is needed. If it is true that the 1944 Act is dead or dying, we have to have a new Act which will reshape our system to what we want it to be. That is why we await the outcome of the Plowden Committee with some interest. The point of controversy in this argument tonight obviously ranges around the present system of grammar schools, secondary modern, secondary technical and primary schools, on the one hand, and the full-blooded comprehensive system on the other. This is what literally divides the two parties.
I am not dogmatic about comprehensive schools or a comprehensive system. I have said for many years now that there are certain parts of the country where a comprehensive school is the correct answer. In a wide, diversified rural area in which we could not get a large enough entry stream it is obvious that a comprehensive school is the right answer. In East Anglia, Anglesey and

certain other places that is the type of thing we need, but in an area such as my constituency of Burton, where so far as is humanly possible we have achieved a perfect educational system—which is not threatened by the Labour Party but which is threatened by something about which I shall have something to say next week—the comprehensive system would not be the answer. It would despoil and destroy years and years of work, particularly the work of the grammar schools and technical schools.
This is the challenge; this is where we have to examine our policies. I say quite bluntly to my right hon. and learned Friend, is Clause 1 of the Bill the beginning of the end of the grammar school? I am not talking of the grammar school system but about the grammar school as a separate entity, a separate school. We all know about the Leicestershire plan. It keeps grammar schools as grammar schools but essentially it changes the very nature and content of the school so that no longer does it carry on the traditional pattern of the grammar school.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Mr. Merlyn Rees indicated assent.

Mr. Jennings: I am glad that the hon. Member fully agrees. I accept the challenge politically. In my political thinking as applied to education, the Leicestershire plan and all its hybrid brothers and sisters and cousins are a definite challenge and danger to what I regard as the traditional grammar school. Whether it is a middle school of 9 to 13 or if the break comes at 14 and the parent has the right to opt for his or her child to go to a so-called grammar school irrespective of ability, when it comes to selection what do we expect of a grammar school?
The hon. Member said that he is all for the able body. I am delighted that in the Bill we make provision for the handicapped child. When it comes to the high flyer I am almost a heretic. In recent years we have done a tremendous amount for the maladjusted and handicapped child. Let us go on doing that. What we are tending to do in reshaping our educational system, obviously in the limited experiment allowed for in Clause 1, is to descend to a level of mediocrity.

Dr. King: Has the hon. Member seen the records of the academic achievements of the sixth forms of comprehensive schools? Does he know, for instance, that in the Isle of Man the achievements in quantity and quality in the sixth form, academically considered, are superior to anything which existed in comparable grammar schools?

Mr. Jennings: I do not dispute that comprehensive schools are doing a wonderful job. I said that I am not dogmatic about comprehensive schools. The point I was taking was that made by the hon. Member for Leeds, South about selection. I am quite sure that in a comprehensive school they are in the end put into streams. They must be. I have no doubt that this is done successfully, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) says, and that they get wonderful results. I was pointing out certain effects of the Leicestershire plan. A parent has a right to say of the child when it is 13, "This child will go to a grammar school irrespective of whether it is dull and backward or a high flyer". I was talking about the high flyers.

Mr. Rees: I pointed out that there are 90 local education authorities watching Leicestershire. The hon. Member says that there is mediocrity in the Leicestershire scheme. How does he know? Has he read of the L.E.A.s moving forward without, on the surface, any informed opinion?

Mr. Jennings: I have informed opinion, because I live on the edge of Leicestershire, I am the Member for Burton and I have watched this plan develop ever since its inception. Under a plan such as the Leicestershire plan, by which, irrespective of ability, a child can be sent to a grammar school, we shall tend to a level of mediocrity. I have seen it for myself. I have a classic case on my own doorstep where the whole nature of a traditional grammar school is being changed by this influx. The hon. Member quoted colleagues in the profession who were frightened that this would cramp and stultify the whole scope of grammar school education.
We have done much for the average and maladjusted children, but if we as a nation are to hold our own in a highly competitive and computer-minded world,

we must give the earth to our high flyers, to the top 5, 6 or 7 per cent. We have to groom them and to give them every encouragement possible, and we must get away from social justice, averaging out and mediocrity. Let us encourage our high flyers, and we shall compete with the best in the world.
We have heard much nonsense talked about the wickedness of the 11-plus. Whether it is 11-plus, 12-plus, 13-plus, 18-plus or 21-plus, we underestimate the resilience of our children when we talk about the stresses and strains of examinations. How do we select at any stage in a child's career? We come back every time to some form of test, whether it is an objective test, an essay test or the old-fashioned scholarship. We must test at some time. We have heard much poppycock about the child not knowing about the test, but we underestimate the intelligence of the children. Even if it is spread over two years or more, they will begin to sense when they are being examined. The hon. Member is a teacher, and he knows. In every class there are children, no matter how good the teaching, no matter how competent the school, no matter how grand the amenities, who detest school. When people tell me that the comprehensive system gets rid of selection, I say that it is complete nonsense. In the end we have the grammar school stream, the average stream and the dull and backward stream in the comprehensive school. The parents, instead of saying that Johnny has gone to a grammar school, will say that he is in the grammar school stream.
I welcome the Bill, but I am frightened about Clause 1. In another place the Minister of State for Education and Science said that this was a simple operation intended to enable a strictly limited number of educational experiments to take place. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with this phrase? I am sorry that I was not present for the opening of the debate, but I was busy with the affairs of Burton ready for next week.

Mr. Hogg: If my hon. Friend refers to HANSARD tomorrow he will see that I said almost exactly the same thing. I hope that it was not very much different, and if there is any difference I will try to explain it.

Mr. Jennings: The phrase was "a strictly limited number of educational experiments". The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said that the Bill mainly put right what authorities had been doing outside the Act, because the Director of Education for Leicestershire saw how he could drive his educational coach through the Act, and this set the whole process going. In another place Baroness Summerskill explained what this Bill will do. This blows the gaff and gives the game away. She said:
More and more local authorities are anxious to introduce comprehensive schools"—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. The hon. Member must not quote from a speech in another place except by a Minister. He may refer to what the noble Lady said.

Mr. Jennings: I will paraphrase it. She said that the purpose of the Bill was to enable local authorities who were desirous of bringing in comprehensive education in their areas to do so. This is what frightens me about the Bill. It pleases hon. Members opposite. I want to see a proper approach to the word "comprehensive" in our educational system, which I admit needs reshaping.
In spite of all the criticism, we have a system of education of which we should be rightly proud. I am sick and tired of people denigrating our educational system and comparing it unfavourably with the systems in the U.S.S.R. and U.S.A. We have many things which we could teach them. No doubt they have many which they could teach us. But in all our debates and discussions, let us stick up for our own country.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: As a Scotsman who is not a schoolmaster, I have some hesitation in challenging the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings), who is an ex-schoolmaster. Schoolmasters are rather like doctors. The suggestion is that no one but a schoolmaster has any right to put forward any views on education and what should be done about education.

Mr. Jennings: I did not say that, nor did I imply it.

Mr. Lawson: Perhaps I should have said that in this respect some schoolmasters are rather like doctors. Doctors

perhaps have a better justification for this attitude than some schoolmasters. I am reinforced in my readiness to offer a little criticism because I know many schoolmasters who disagree with the hon. Member for Burton. Educationists are very divided on this issue. There are the stalwart opponents of the comprehensive system, of whom the hon. Gentleman is one. There are the stalwart supporters of the comprehensive system, of whom my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Meryln Rees) is one.
Although the Bill is a small Bill as regards Scotland—only one of the Clauses relates directly to Scotland—the main subject of debate this evening is of considerable interest to us all in Scotland. I am happy to say that Clause 1, about which there has been so much discussion, is unnecessary in Scotland. Traditionally over the years—and over a much longer period than has been the case in England—Scotland has had an education system which has been open to virtually all youngsters. It has been a comprehensive system. The schools which are still boasted of in Scotland are comprehensive schools.
The characteristic school in Scotland is a comprehensive school. At the time when comprehensive schools were the schools in Scotland beyond any question, doubt or challenge, Scotland beyond any question or doubt provided the rulers of England—I will not say "and Wales". Doubt as to the status and standing of Scotland is beginning to emerge only now that we have begun to adopt something of the English system. The setting up of what we call junior secondary schools, sorting children out when they are about 11 or 12 into the junior secondary school or the senior secondary school, is indicative of the type of system that there is in England, and it is causing very grave disharmony and much disturbance in Scotland.
This is an alien system which is being injected into our long-established system which produced such excellent results. The hon. Member for Burton doubts the possibility of the comprehensive school operating in areas with large concentrations of youngsters where there could be a diversity of schools. In Scotland we have had comprehensive


schools in country areas and in towns. Heriot's in Edinburgh is a comprehensive school. Over the years, Scottish comprehensive schools have produced men and women, in so far as opportunities have been available for women in Scotland, who have shown that they can carry the burden of empire as well as any coming from the playing fields of Eton.
The hon. Member for Burton said that the comprehensive system was a step towards reducing everyone to the level of mediocrity. He said that the high flyers—the 4 per cent. to 6 per cent.—should be singled out and carefully nurtured so that they would reach right to the top, and that this would enable us to hold our own with the rest of the world. The Empire was not built on the high flyer. We have all heard the argument that battles were won and empires made on the playing fields of Eton. Those who came from the public schools of England and who were said to have played such a large part in building and running the Empire, which has now gone, were not the type of people who had the high academic ability and quality of which the hon. Gentleman spoke.
Britain and the world needs a great range of developed capacity and I believe that in some respects we tend to be needlessly narrow in our views and unaware of what the world requires, for we must not think in terms of one or two types of ability possessed by hand-picked youngsters when tested at the age of 11, 12, 18 or even 19. If youngsters are given the right opportunities they select their own range of capacity according to their abilities. This is the way people who are worth anything emerge. Many of them emerge having had to overcome great handicaps, but I appreciate that not all of them emerge and I agree that in the past a world of potential capacity mus have been lost through lack of opportunity.
I am not agreeing that all the emphasis should be placed on the special child. It is too easy to concentrate on the child who can easily remember or easily turn something off his or her pen. There are many others who are equally able to turn things out with their hands, things which the youngster more adept

at using a pen would never dream of making.
In considering the way we should proceed we must consider what tests we apply, what means we have of saying, "This is the best way to find the most promising youngsters". This cannot be decided on the basis of a test at school or university. One must see what the boy or girl does upon becoming a man or woman; how he or she lives and the sort of things that are done. It is for this reason that I say that we tend to be needlessly narrow in selecting certain types according to ability.
Whatever happens, we must provide the best facilities we can, although I believe that those facilities will always be limited and that we will never achieve all we desire. Nevertheless, if I were asked what sort of youngster I would nurture and nourish I would say not only or not so much the lad o' pairts, the lad of ability, because he starts out with an advantage, but the youngster who finds progress more difficult. It is rather a contradiction in terms to think that we spend so much more effort on the child who finds learning easy. If youngsters with less ability were helped to get over their difficulties they might be able to show many of the high flyers and quick-off-the-mark fellows just what they can do. I am, of course, talking not merely in terms of character but of sheer ability.

Mr. Jennings: I hope that the hon. Member will realise that I, too, made a differentiation. I did not for a moment suggest that the dull or backward child should be neglected. I pay tribute to what we are doing on their behalf and I have urged that more should be done. I also recognise that over the years, particularly since the war, the average child has been encouraged to a great degree. I emphasised the fact that there was a danger involved here but, at the same time, I urged that we should not neglect the real high flyer—the type who can make all the difference between our position in the world being a high or low one.

Mr. Lawson: I cannot accept that, and although I do not wish to drive the hon. Member into an extreme position, what he is suggesting is dangerous and could


lead, if followed, to a growing concentration of effort on the brightest youngster to the detriment of the rest.

Mr. Jennings: Mr. Jennings indicated dissent.

Mr. Lawson: I can, perhaps, best illustrate my point by referring to a school in my constituency. This came to my notice only a few months ago. I attended a women's meeting and heard them talking about their youngsters. One woman described a class of children who were about 18 months away from the sorting-out process—it is not the 11-plus with us. She said that they were already sorted out by the teacher into categories, and that in one category was the cream of the children, to whom the teacher wished to devote his energies to seeing that they passed. Those others who did not pass were doomed from that stage onwards. I know of a headmaster who, after asking the children to which of the senior schools they hoped to go looked down his nose and audibly spoke of the hopelessness of their thinking that they could get to a particular school. One child told her parents of that kind of thing.
Here is stigmatising, and the putting on of the seal of failure, as I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) comment. We cannot say what capacity a youngster has, and we should provide opportunities for the youngster himself to select one of a number of ways that are equally necessary to our society. I might add that the right hon. Gentleman has taken over control of higher education in Scotland very much against my inclination; and that it will not be long before he hears a lot from us on the subject.
We welcome Clause 3, and are only surprised and a little distressed that it should come forward in this way. I well remember that at 15 minutes past 11 o'clock at night on 8th May, 1963, the noble Lady the Under-Secretary told my hon. Friends and myself that she could not accept just precisely what is now before us. I was then substituting, as my hon. Friends will recall, for our hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Mary-hill (Mr. Hannan), who has persisted on this point over the years. He had been pressing it just prior to that occasion, and had been turned down on the basis that this could not be done on a Scottish

basis but only on a United Kingdom basis. As on that occasion, my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill is not able to be with us tonight, although that was very much his wish. Indeed, had he been here I would not have been speaking at all.
All the arguments having been produced to show how weak and absurd that United Kingdom basis was, the noble Lady rose at 15 minutes past 11 o'clock on 8th May, 1963—

Mr. William Ross: Without a single Tory supporter.

Mr. Lawson: —and said that the argument about the United Kingdom did not enter into the discussion, but that there was a quite different argument. We had destroyed that argument, and the noble Lady proceeded to tell us that it did not matter and had never mattered and that what mattered was that if she on behalf of the Government were to adopt what my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill had urged on her the Government would be adopting a practice which would be detrimental to the existing set-up. Her argument was that the compulsory school-leaving age for the handicapped child was 16, as opposed to the normal 15, and that my hon. Friend's scheme would mean that those responsible would be acting contrary to the encouragement of ability. The payment of the grant or bursary was not designed to help a family in need—a family allowance could perhaps do that—but was intended to encourage a child of ability to stay voluntarily at school. In proposing our scheme we were therefore going contrary to a basic principle.
This was something like the argument which we have heard today from the hon. Member for Burton. Here was a rejection of my hon. Friend's plea to help the handicapped child, and the noble Lady said that if the scheme were adopted it would produce the criterion of age rather than of voluntary attendance at school by the child of ability. We did not think very highly of that argument then, any more than we do now after listening to the hon. Member for Burton.

Mr. James Boyden: Obviously; the Scottish Office was far behind the English Education Department, because when my hon. Friend the


Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) and I were pressing for a long time for the adoption of this proposal we were told that it was just a matter of finding the Parliamentary time. There was great difficulty in finding that time, but the Scottish Office obviously was against the proposal in principle.

Mr. Lawson: If one does not want to do something one can find any sort of argument. On one occasion it suited the noble Lady's book to take one line, and on another occasion it suited the Government to take another. The noble Lady spoke of the difficulties and the repercussions which were produced. Her heart bled for the handicapped youngsters. She has a heart and it occasionally shows itself, but on that occasion she said that nothing could be done because many more new difficulties would be created. It was so immensely difficult that despite her sympathy and her desire to help, and despite the pleadings of my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill over the years, it could not be done—and yet now here it is done in nine lines of this Clause. The noble Lady really will have to do some explaining of all this. I am commissioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill to welcome what the Government are now doing. It should have been done long before this.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I had not intended to intervene in the debate, but I have found it so fascinating, particularly some of the comments of hon. Members opposite, especially those of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), that I think it right to say a few words.
Along with hon. Members on both sides, I welcome the Bill for the reasons which have been ably put by previous speakers, notably the particularly persuasive reasons advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Whatever our reasons for welcoming the Bill may be, there is one piece of common ground, I think, namely, that all of us recognise the need for change and we think that the Bill will help us to come to sensible conclusions about the nature of that change. We are all innovators.

However, the course of the debate has clearly shown that that is about as far as agreement between the two sides goes.
The basic question is, "Change to what?" Some of us refuse to be stampeded in this matter. In my view, we are in some danger of moving into an era when there are too many pedagogues peddling panaceas, not all of them as persuasive as their promoters imagine. There have been many strong views expressed, and there is the danger of mighty schisms developing in the education world over the next few years. As the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) so wisely said, if too many of these views are given credence and are implemented, there will be the danger of severe fragmentation in our education structure.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North gave me the impression—I think that he gave the House generally the same impression—that he regards the Bill as a kind of signpost to the comprehensive school. This is certainly one of the interpretation put on it by the noble Lady, Baroness Summerskill, in another place. I do not regard the Bill as anything of the sort, and I take this view not for any reasons of prejudice. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings), I believe that there is a very good case to be made for comprehensive schools, but I see no reason why the good grammar school, the proficient technical school and the sound secondary modern school should be swept away and the comprehensive system be substituted in their place. I strongly reject the dogmatic approach of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North and some of his hon. Friends.
The hon. Gentleman told my right hon. and learned Friend that he should give a clear lead to the local authorities. Some of the flaws in his argument were pointed out very clearly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and I shall not develop them further, but I wonder to what extent the hon. Member for Sunderland, North thinks that his own party, of which he is one of the principal spokesmen, is giving us much of a clear lead about the organisation of our secondary education system.
My critical view of the party opposite in this respect is shared by many people


outside the House. I draw particularly to the attention of the House an editorial published on 8th May in the "Teacher", which, as we know, is the journal of the National Union of Teachers. I hope that it will not be regarded as too lengthy a quote because I believe that it says something important and that what it says deserves a wider audience. The "Teacher" says:
For some time we have been asking what the Labour Party is going to do about the grammar schools in the light of the Party's declared aim to introduce a comprehensive system of secondary education and Mr. Wilson's, somewhat contradictory statement that they would be abolished 'over his dead body'. Many other people must have been asking the same question, because Labour's National Executive has issued a special circular for the guidance of M.P.s and election workers on the subject. The new circular says that Socialists intend to reorganise secondary education on comprehensive lines"—
we heard that today from the hon. Member for Sunderland, North—
and in carrying this out they will carefully preserve what is valuable in grammar school education, namely, a wide range of courses up to university entrance standard. What it does not say is what will happen to the grammar schools themselves, as separate, selective institutions—which is precisely what everyone wants to know. And yet, in the Commons last week Mr. Merlyn Rees, M.P., himself a former grammar school boy and teacher, said that the last thing he would do was to destroy the grammar school system. The National Executive might have saved its time; all its circular has done is to perpetuate the present equivocal position of the Party on this subject.
I would hope that the Labour Party would be less equivocal. I think that it would serve the cause of education for it to be so. It would serve the cause of education tremendously if some hon. Members who belong to the Parliamentary Labour Party were, in some places, less dogmatic. I think that this is what my right hon. Friend may have had in mind when he suggested at Faversham that the freedom of choice of our citizens in the form of education that we have in this country would be seriously limited if a comprehensive system of education were imposed. If one adds to the view of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North the view expressed by some hon. Members opposite about what they would do to the independent private sector of education if they were the Government, it makes me, for one, shudder about the freedom of choice which the people of

this country would have. It seems to me that at no time has a rational and pragmatic approach to education been more needed than now, and, in my view, this Bill approaches the problem in just that spirit.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. James Boyden: I agree with the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith) that the Bill is not exactly a panacea. It is a mousey little Bill. It is certainly not the Pandora's Box which the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) feared that it might be. I wanted to remind the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who is having a very long dinner hour, and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South that in 1867 Disraeli stele the Liberals' clothes and Gladstone won a great victory in 1868. In 1944, Conservative Ministers in the Coalition Government were compelled by Labour Members of the Cabinet and the feeling of the country to attire themselves in educational clothes which fitted them badly. The British public was not deceived by the Tory disguise. They gave the Tory masqueraders a decisive verdict in 1945.
During the last twelve months hon. Members opposite have been dressing up again, and, in the words of a very eminent Tory, they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. In the 1964 election the public will ignore their fancy costume and return the Labour Party.
The Bill has three Tory characteristics. It is too little, and very late. It is the 59th minute of the eleventh hour. It is cheap Tory modernisation. It offers marginal improvement with the minimum of finance. There is a kind of Tory law of fading returns: the loftier the principle, the less the money.
Thirdly, the Bill marks the gradual moving away of the Tories from their belief in aristocratic education to meritocratic education. We welcome this slight move to the Left. At least meritocracy is better than aristocracy. But they are still a very long way from evolving a genuinely democratic education system.
As my hon. Friend said, the use of Clause 1 for the modification of secondary and primary education should not


be for needs which are not strictly educational. I notice in the same context the A.E.C. memorandum to the Plowden Committee. If the Secretary of State is worried about the "wastage" of women, so it is called today, will he face the problem? If he wants more men teachers, will he face the problem? I hope that he will not try to get round it through the back door by altering age structures so that the purpose is to make primary schools more attractive to men. Will he follow the suggestion set out by the Labour Party for the attraction of married women back to schools by giving them tax inducements and part-time superannuation rights and by getting the local authorities to appoint advisory officers to welcome them back?

Mr. Hogg: I would not be in order if I replied to the first part of the hon. Member's question, but to the second part I can say that I have no power of doing anything under this Clause except to approve a proposal from a local authority. The principles upon which the approval of a Minister is given or withheld under Section 13—which is the procedure imported into this Clause—are very well known and I shall be limited to them.

Mr. Boyden: But the right hon. and learned Gentleman could very well allow a flood of applications of this sort which would have as their main motive trying to deal with the teacher shortage instead of dealing with the situation in particular schools on an education basis. However, it looks as if the Secretary of State can assure us that he will only make his decision on an education basis, and if he does that I will be content.
I would have thought that the purpose of the Clause was, by experimentation supported in another way by research, to find out the best education organisation for children. The Education Act and its practice has been to make State education more and more child-based. Possibly this is what the Secretary of State wants, but I hope very much that he will make this clear.
I want particularly to talk about provision for handicapped children. Clause 1 should be able to make a contribution to better education for them. I have

here evidence by the Guild of Teachers of Backward Children to the Plowden Committee about the transfer of handicapped children from one class to another. It says:
In this sense neither the age of 7 nor chat of 11 has magical properties with regard to certain groups of handicapped children, and it should be possible for children to be retained in primary schools or in all-age schools as long as they can benefit more from such provision than from change.
Transfer from infant to junior school and from junior to secondary schools can create problems for various groups of backward children unless there is close relationship between the schools.
As I read Clause 1, it will enable this to be done in new schools better than it could be done before, and I hope that the general principle will enable local authorities which are perhaps not as conscious of this difficulty as the Guild to take careful note of it.
As I said earlier, the Clause giving higher maintenance allowances has been awaited a long time and I am tempted to agree that it is strange that Parliamentary time should be used as an excuse for not putting right until as late as this what was known and admitted to be a bad anomaly. I hope this will be associated with a good deal more interest in the teaching of handicapped children and provision for them. This is why I say that the Bill is inadequate. We would have hoped that there would have been a good many statements and a good deal of activity by the Secretary of State's Department to make a real bite into the problem of handicapped and backward children.
For a long time I have been worried about the lack of places. I know that advance has been made, but there are still, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North said, about 10,000 children awaiting places. The central problem is not even the lack of places on the waiting list but the fact that because there is such a deficiency of places ascertainment is not done as energetically as it should be, and many authorities do not take the steps that are open to them because of the difficulties. The actual number of places that is short now is a great deal more serious than it would appear.
The second difficulty that I would like to stress is that nothing like enough


training is given to the teachers of handicapped and backward children. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will soon read, if he has not done so already, the evidence of the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children which has been saying, what some of us have been saying for quite a long time, that we need some training centres, not necessarily training colleges but probably several university departments, to specialise much more widely than they are doing. We certainly need a number of teacher training colleges to specialise in the training of handicapped and backward children, but we also need a big drive to offer opportunities for training those teachers who are in special schools and who have not had that training.
I received a little while ago the actual number of teachers who had been trained for special education and it was very small indeed. I think it would be fair to say that this is a field in which there has been the maximum neglect. Inasmuch as this Clause puts right this anomaly, I hope that we can expect from the Secretary of State, in the short time that remains to him, more evidence of interest in the training of the various categories to which I have referred.
In order to make any impact next year, many of these plans should be well advanced now and places made available in the various colleges. The actual setting up of the institution I have been referring to would perhaps take a little longer. I do not think that it is good enough for the Ministry of Education to accept that when it has advertised supplementary courses and special places and the number of places has not been taken up that is an excuse for not instituting still more places and bringing more pressure to bear on the local authorities.
Not only is the educational provision for backward children and the training of teachers for this work the Cinderella of the educational world, but so is the school medical service which ascertains children. School medical officers are overworked and are not supported by auxiliary staff. Psychologists are difficult to obtain. There has been a very slight movement forward in the matter of psychologists and psychiatrists in the regional hospital boards who are available for this work.
In giving a somewhat tepid welcome to this very slight Bill. I hope that we can

expect that it will be a prelude to the right hon. and learned Gentleman doing a little more work in the Department, so that when the day comes, we can take it over more nicely and give it the impetus it needs.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I hope that I am right in assuming, Mr. Speaker, that the debate can continue beyond the hour of 10 o'clock and that by intervening I shall not deprive my hon. Friend, or any other hon. Member, of the opportunity to catch your eye.
My right hon. and learned Friend was described by a rather uncharitable hon. Member opposite as an adolescent. If to combine a sense of fun and good humour with brilliant intellect and command of language is to behave like an adolescent. I hope that there will be more of that type in the House in future.
It has been suggested that anyone who would introduce into the debate the battle of the preservation or otherwise of the grammar schools might be described as a backwoodsman. I hope that no one will accuse me of that, for the main topic with which I wish to deal is the threat of the extinction of all the grammar schools in my own city. I take part in the debate because I see the possibility of the misuse of the Bill as a vehicle for the hastening of the extinction of these fine schools.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) quoted a speech—I am not sure who made the speech, but it was meant to be someone respectable and was probably a Minister of the Crown—which suggested that the relationship between the Government and the local authorities should be that of a happy marriage in education and that there should be local freedom. I am all for that, but in my own city it seems that this happy marriage has been a shot-gun wedding and that for political reasons the local authority is completely disregarding the whole spirt of educational thought.
We learn from hon. Members opposite of the unity which one hopes will continue in the educational system. In Bristol we are threatened with the complete destruction of the existing system. No one would deny that experiment is a good thing, and that is what the Bill


is about to a very large extent, but I am sure that it would not be the will of any hon. Member interested in education, whatever his view, that a city should be faced with the possibility of the destruction of all its grammer schools at one blow.
I noticed some hon. Members looking at me with displeasure when earlier this evening I was reading a newspaper in the Chamber, but I brought that newspaper into the House in order to be able to quote from it, because it gives considerable support to my case. It is the Bristol Evening Post, which is not noted for its support for the Tory Government, or for Conservative Members of Parliament for the City of Bristol. At best, it would be described as an independent newspaper. On Friday, 26th June, it had the headline, "The heads speak out". Above the headline were photographs of the heads of the seven schools in Bristol which are direct grant schools and which are threatened with dire measures by the Bristol Education Committee.
In recent months, the Bristol Education Committee has had a sub-committee in secret session to consider the future of these schools. The members of the sub-committee have been bound to secrecy until the proposals could be finalised and submitted to the Education Committee. However, appalled by what has been happening, certain members of the Committee, from my party, have felt themselves obliged to break silence and to speak out and give the citizens of Bristol knowledge of this very grave threat to these schools. It is planned by the local education authority, which has a majority of Socialists, to withdraw from these schools all the children placed there by the local authority, a very severe threat to these schools
That so appalled the committee representing the schools—a committee headed by the Dean of Bristol—that it issued a statement saying:
We can see no reason why the city should not continue to make use of the rich diversity of educational provision in Bristol, where maintained and direct grant grammar schools and comprehensive schools at present co-exist.
That statement was signed by a number of responsible people at the head of those schools.
No one would deny that there are cases where grammar schools should be closed. In country areas where there are a large number of grammar schools, there could be a good case for comprehensive schools to be created, and perhaps a better job could be done in a rural area where the population was scattered if there were one fine, large school, but in a city which has this splendid tradition going back over such a long time, and with schools providing the finest education—and no one would deny that, not even hon. Gentlemen opposite, nor the members of the city council who are out to smash these schools—we see this spectacle of aiming to smash these fine schools, and I would not willingly support the Bill if I thought that it could be used as a further vehicle for that sort of activity.
There are other matters dealt with in the Bill, and I would not quarrel with any of those. For many years I served on the education committee in Bristol, and I think I can say that I have had a fairly wide experience of the State education system in all its aspects. I have served on management committees, on governing bodies, and so on, in special schools as well as in the ordinary type of school. No one would deny that in this changing world experiment is very necessary, but local freedom can be used for dangerous political purposes, and I shall find it difficult to support the Bill unless I can be assured by my right hon. and learned Friend that it will never be his wish to see the sort of wanton destruction which is planned in my native city taking place under the cloak of a Measure of this kind.
If I receive that assurance, I shall be able to support the Bill, but at the moment I am in some doubt about whether I can give it my support because it seems that in Bristol local freedom has not worked out well. It is being used as a cloak for political activity which cannot but do harm to a number of splendid educational institutions which have rendered great service in the past, are rendering fine service now and, I hope, will long continue to do so in the future.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) into the argument about the grammar schools in Bristol. I rise to say a few words


about Clause 3. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) in expressing pleasure that this Clause has been included in the Bill, but my pleasure is rather marred by the discreditable way in which the whole business was handled by the Scottish Office and by the hon. Lady.
I took part in the debate on 8th May last year. On looking at the record, I see that I was speaking on this subject after midnight. We pooled our forces and tried to get the hon. Lady to accept this proposal. On that occasion there was not a single Scottish Tory Member in the House. They were not worried about handicapped children. Incidentally, there is not a Scottish Tory Member on the benches opposite tonight. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) has just run in like a Derby winner.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am sure that the hon. Member will have a sense of proportion and will tell the House how many Scottish Socialist Members are now present.

Mr. Willis: During the course of the debate there have been eight or nine Scottish Socialist Members present. I do not want to waste time by naming them all.

Mr. Robert Cooke: It does not take much time to count up to one!

Mr. Willis: If the hon. Member had been here a little longer he would have seen them, and would also have heard them.
My pleasure at the introduction of the Clause is marred by my memory of the rather disgraceful manner in which this matter was handled. The hon. Lady must admit that her speech on 8th May last year was a bit of nonsense.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lady Tweedsmuir): The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lady Tweedsmuir) indicated dissent.

Mr. Willis: If it was not nonsense, why are we now departing from what she said then? We tried to tell her last year that it was nonsense, but we could not persuade her. My hon. Friends and I have been pressing for this minor reform for some time, in respect of England and Wales, and also Scotland. My English and Welsh colleagues were told

that there was no Parliamentary time, but Scottish Members had the necessary Parliamentary time. We had the opportunity to do this, but the Scottish Ministers were so spineless that they could not take the opportunity that was offered them. That is what rather disgusts me. The Scottish Office was content to drag along on the heels of England. As soon as the English Department decided to introduce the Bill, the Scottish Office found that it could slip this in.

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend knows that it could never be argued that there would be no time in the Scottish Committee. We can always make time for matters of importance.

Mr. Willis: I agree, but my hon. Friend will, remember that we spent hours on this matter on 8th May. A Bill was before the House at that time which could have been amended to include this proposal, but the plain fact was that the Scottish Ministers accepted the dictates of the English Ministers in respect of this trifling matter. They were not prepared to stand up and say, "In our view this is right. We shall have this now. If England cannot find the time for it, that is not our problem. Let the English find time to introduce a Private Member's Bill". I ought slightly to amend what I have said, and point out that it was not the hon. Lady's nonsense; her brief was prepared in the Scottish Office and the hon. Lady read it with her customary charm, but the content was an awful lot of stuff and nonsense.
I rose to express my sorrow at the fact that under the Tories Scotland has sunk so low that in order to achieve this trivial reform we have had to wait for the English Ministers. Now the situation will be rather worse, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been foisted on to us—a matter about which we shall have a considerable amount to say. The hon. Member for Bristol, West might admire the intellectual capacity of his right hon. and learned Friend, but we do not want him interfering in Scotland. We like to deal with these matters ourselves.
I welcome the Clause, but I had hoped that the noble Lady would intervene in the debate. She might have told the


House, in rather a generous manner, "I am sorry about what happened last year, I appreciate the fact I was wrong". She might have displayed some semblance of penitence. It may be that the noble Lady is not big enough to do that, but I think it only right that she should do so. No one loses by saying, "I am sorry, I made a mistake". We admire people who do that. I had hoped that the noble Lady would address the House and say that last year she was wrong and that many of the arguments did not stand up to examination. Unfortunately, it looks as though we are to have a winding-up speech from the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Hear, hear.

Mr. Willis: We have heard from him once and this is only a three-page Bill. In fact it is not even a three-page bill—there are two pages. Is not it a rather pathetic sort of Government that cannot produce two people to speak on such a trifling Measure? There seems a lack of capacity somewhere. Apparently they do not trust each other, and can trust only the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
I had hoped that we might have had a winding-up speech from the noble Lady. Scotland is mentioned in the Bill and there is no reason why a Scottish Minister should not speak. Surely it has not become a great sin for a Scottish Minister to interfere in matters affecting Scotland. We are getting into a terrible position under this Tory Government. We have been sinking, and now we are not even allowed a Scottish Minister to speak on Scottish matters. I should have thought that we might have had at least one short speech—not a long one, just a short one—dealing with this very important point; and a few regrets expressed; and due apologies offered to the members of the Opposition for having resisted this with such vigour on previous occasions. Perhaps also thanks might have been expressed to the Opposition for the way in which we have nobly assisted the noble Lady, in the complete absence of her political colleagues. We have assisted her on this Clause which I welcome.

Earl of Dalkeith: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) complains about my right hon. and learned Friend speaking twice. May I ask whether the hon. Member was present in the Chamber to hear my right hon. and learned Friend when he spoke on the first occasion?

Mr. Willis: I consider myself fortunate not to have heard him.

9.39 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: I think that it may be convenient if I intervene at this point—with the rising tide of Scotland behind me. I understand that the Rule is suspended and so no doubt we shall be able to carry on happily for a little while, which will give the noble Lady the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland ample opportunity to make amends, which I feel that she should do. My Scottish colleagues have made abundantly clear that on this matter the Government were seriously in error 12 months ago, and I think that the decent thing to do would be to acknowledge it. The noble Lady is putting on a brave smile, but I do not see why she should be forced to speak through the mouth of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. As time will present no difficulty, we shall look forward to an explanation from her later.
By now the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have realised, if he did not know before, that if a Scottish Clause is included in a Bill the voice of Scotland will indeed be heard. We are glad that our Scottish friends—at least those on this side of the House; they are a little thin in numbers on the other side—are showing a genuine interest in this matter which has been raised on many occasions by hon. Members on this side of the House, in relation to Scotland and to England and Wales. That is the question of the inequity of a handicapped child in a special school being obliged by law to remain at school for a year longer than other children—which is very right and necessary—and the parents of that child not being eligible for a grant which the parents of a perfectly able-bodied child would be able to obtain from the local authority.
I reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said about our extreme disquiet at the variations in maintenance grants made by different local authorities. It a child's needs are comparable and the circumstances of the parents are comparable, in equity the parents of that child should have the appropriate grant no matter where he or she lives. This is the unfortunate part about this Clause, which otherwise we welcome very warmly indeed. I am sure that all who are interested in education have been gratified to read in the last few days the very interesting evidence submitted to the Plowden Committee by those concerned with the education of handicapped children.
I have here the evidence of the Association for Special Education in its memorandum to the Central Advisory Committee. In reading it I was particularly struck by something which is of very great concern to me. That is the question of the pre-school child. I wish to make reference to the scope of the Bill because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North pointed out, we think it a great pity that this Bill was not an Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
We are most of us aware of the circumstances in which the Bill was brought before the House. We are grateful to the Minister of State who deals with higher education for seizing what appeared to be a gap in the Parliamentary time-table to introduce a small Measure with two points only in it. Because of the Title it is impossible now to insert any other matter. Unfortunately, his political calculations went awry. I think I am correct in saying that when the Bill was planned he was under the impression that the Prime Minister might appeal to the country in June. Therefore, it was essential if the Bill was to go through that it should be kept to minimum provisions. I am particularly regretful about this. Among the many minor reforms—I am not now speaking of major legislation—I should like to see legislated for is the position of the Secretary of State for Education in relation to pre-school children who are not in recognised nursery schools or classes.
At present we have a vast number of private nurseries, private play groups and

so on, springing up all over the country. They are exclusively in the province of the Ministry of Health and local health authorities. This means that the whole question of child development and educational play provision is omitted. The sort of inspection which is carried out of hundreds of private groups of one kind and another is confined narrowly to matters of health. The inspectors who go around are much more concerned about the number of lavatories and such things than with the development of the child.
Only in one or two cases on which the Minister has turned a blind eye do local authorities use their nursery staff and inspectors to give advice and assistance to many parents who, because the Government have not pressed on with nursery education, have tried to provide it for themselves. This may appear to be a small gap in our educational provision, but it is exactly the kind of thing which could have been put into the Bill had it been drafted somewhat differently. I shall not pursue that because, unfortunately, it has not been included in the Bill. We have not had an opportunity of including this or several other relatively useful matters which could have been in the Bill had the calculations of hon. Members opposite been more politically astute.
Apart from the assistance to handicapped children, the main Clause is Clause 1, which is permissive and which will allow local education authorities, and in particular the West Riding, to pursue schemes of reorganisation which at the moment they could not legally do. I am all for flexibility and for experiments, but I must say frankly that I am beginning to become a little concerned at the multiplicity of schemes which are being considered all over the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees)—possibly the right hon. and learned Gentleman can confirm this in his reply—said that 90 local education authorities are actively considering schemes of secondary reorganisation.

Mr. Hogg: I think that the number is about right, but without notice I could not give an exact figure.

Mrs. White: I have every reason to think that the figure is not far wrong.


Well over half the local education authorities are actively concerned in schemes of reorganisation. This should much concern us, because evidence is being submitted to the Plowden Committee which suggests that children should be removed from one school to another at the age of 8, of 9, of 10, of 11, of 12, of 13, of 14 and of 16. The only age I have not heard mentioned is 15. This means that unless we are careful we may find ourselves with an extraordinary patchwork of secondary organisation in this country.
Both the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) said that we should have no kind of formulation at this stage. In a sense I can see what they mean, but the Government have put education authorities in a very difficult position, because they have not awakened early enough to see what has been happening in education. Several years ago the right hon. Gentleman expressed the view that the tripartite system was crumbling, but apart from permitting the Leicestershire experiment he did no more about it. His predecessors have been obstinately obstructive and his successors have been myopic, and the result has been that education authorities are agonising over the question how they will carry out their secondary organisation.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South said, nowhere can authorities turn for objective advice. If one writes to education authorities or members of various groups, one is likely to have a statement which is either concerned with local conditions, which may not apply in one's area, or is a partisan view which, unless one has considerable local knowledge, one might not be in a position to assess. It is lamentable that because of lack of foresight on the part of the Government there is no place at the moment to which a member of an education authority may turn for an objective weighing-up of the advantages and disadvantages of various possible schemes of organisation of various groups by age and so forth.
It is also extremely unfortunate that the Plowden Committee was appointed so late. I am well aware that there is a

system in the Department of Education of a central advisory council which is appointed ad hoc and given a certain remit. Until it has worked its way through that, any other major pressing problem must wait its turn. The result of all this is that we have had reports on the universities. We have had the Crowther Report and the Newsom Report. We are still waiting for a report on the foundation of it all—the primary schools and, following them, the transfer from primary to secondary education. Unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman informs us tonight that a request may be made to the Plowden Committee for an interim report on the age of transfer, we shall have to wait another two years until 1966 before we have the full report of the Plowden Committee.
What, therefore, is the position of education authorities all over the country—the great urban authorities, the rural authorities, the small authorities, the large authorities—which have come to the point when they believe that secondary education should be reorganised? We have had much discussion tonight, particularly from hon. Members opposite, on the pros and cons of the comprehensive system. The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings), professing that he was not being dogmatic, was dogmatic until his very last sentence, when he said that it all needs re-shaping. Having reached his last sentence, he did not say how.
The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) spoke of the difficulty in Bristol. I do not want to go into all the local conditions there, but I put this to the hon. Gentleman. It is impossible for an authority which is attempting to reorganise its secondary education on comprehensive lines when it has a large number of highly selective schools in the city. I am familiar with the matter of principle. It cannot be done, because, if there is a large proportion of selective schools in the city, there cannot be comprehensive education. The two things do not go together.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Surely the hon. Lady would not make out a case for abolishing all the grammar schools?

Mrs. White: I am not arguing that case one way or the other. I am pointing out that, if comprehensive schools are


being aimed at, they cannot be comprehensive when within their catchment area there is a high proportion of highly selective schools. The two things do not match. Therefore, it is essential that one should fully understand the difficulties of education authorities whose schools, which should have a full range of ability, are deprived of children of a higher range of ability because they are creamed off into the other schools. This is a real difficulty.
I repeat that I do not wish to go into the whole question. Those of us who are concerned with education matters are very familiar with the arguments by this time. My deep convction of the need for the comprehensive principle in secondary education is based, as much as anything, upon the effect of selection on primary education. I am convinced that, so long as selection is kept at 11, 12 or 13, there will be a detrimental effect upon the education of children of primary school age. The evidence of this is incontrovertible and is becoming increasingly recognised. It is for that reason, as much as for any reason within the secondary system itself, that I, for one, am passionately against selection of children at 11 or any comparable age.
I have said that at present members of education authorities and administrators in local authority offices are having deep heart-searchings about how they are to implement the principle which they believe to be educationally right—the comprehensive system. Because of lack of foresight, many of them have to do this within a structure of school buildings which it is very difficult to adapt. This, again, is because of the intransigent position of so many Conservative Ministers of Education, for there has not been adequate foresight in this matter.
Had the Minister seven years ago reached the view that the tripartite system was crumbling, he should have said so. He should have said, "Let us at least so plan our secondary buildings that we will be able to use them flexibly, one way or the other". It should have been so organised that had an experiment gone one way or the other, in favour of tripartite or bipartite education, comprehensive or otherwise, our buildings would have been flexible enough to be used whichever way the argument went.
Without such forethought and foresight it cannot be a success. Ministers should have taken an educationally objective attitude and have said, "We have not made up our minds. We do not want to be dogmatic. He will not build and so go one way or the other but will keep the position open". It is impossible, however, for the position to be kept open if one builds in a way which in itself determines the pattern of one's educational organisation.
Unfortunately that is what has been happening during the past decade. That is why we are now going to be in great difficulties in many places in achieving a thoroughly satisfactory reorganisation. In some places there will be far more expense and difficulty than there would have been had a statesmanlike view been taken towards this problem. The fact that 90 education authorities are now coming round to our point of view is indicative that we have been right; the tripartite system was mistaken and that alterations will have to be made. Because for political, and I emphasise political, and not educational reasons—for political, doctrinaire, dogmatic reasons—local authorities have not been encouraged to have flexibility in their building programmes, we will possibly have considerable damage done to our educational organisation in future.
I wish to conclude by asking a question which happens to be of a constituency interest to me. I will not go into the local details of the difficulties which have arisen in my county; I ask this question in a general context. I have said that there is nowhere to which local authorities or their elected representatives can turn for objective information and advice; in other words, there is no publication or series of reports, and so on from which they can obtain information or are able to balance the pros and cons of different methods. What do they do in these circumstances? The answer is that they go direct to the Ministry and ask for comments on specific schemes.
This is exactly what happened to the Flintshire Education Authority. Certain proposals which have been the subject of contention in the county—I will not go into the merits of them one way or the other—were submitted to the Ministry for comment and advice. The


comment received was to criticise the proposals in detail on purely educational grounds, to point out that there were various defects, omissions and deficiencies which, according to the Ministry's inspectors and officials, appeared to be manifest to them. The authority was strongly advised that other methods of organisation should be carefully examined. This advice was completely flouted by the Flintshire Education Authority, which took no notice of it whatever.
When advice has been sought in this way and has been completely disregarded, what does the Minister do? He, after all, is responsible for the proper organisation of education. We all recognise that it is a partnership, but the ultimate responsibility rests with him. When his official advice is tendered, and is completely disregarded, we bare entitled—

It being Ten o'clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Education Bill [Lords] and on the Perpetuities and Accumulations Bill [Lords], may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mrs. White: I was asking the Minister whether he would be good enough to reply to what I put as a general question. It is true that it happens to have arisen in my own constituency, but I have a feeling that, with all the schemes now under consideration, a similar position is likely to arise in a number of other local authority areas, and it would be for the general benefit of educational administration if we could have an answer from the Minister as to exactly where he stands in those circumstances.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Hogg: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White)—

Mrs. White: By leave of the House.

Mr. Hogg: If I require the leave of the House, I certainly ask for it, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I thought that as I moved—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): The right hon. and earned Gentleman, having moved the Second Reading, must have the leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. Willey: Although, in that case, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am sure that the Minister will have the leave of the House to speak again, we note with surprise that although he has sat with his colleagues who share his responsibility, he has not allowed one of them to reply.

Mr. Willis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. While we might be willing to allow the right hon. and learned Gentleman to speak a second time, surely we shall also hear something from the noble Lady the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Willis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I take it that it will be in order for the noble Lady to speak after the right hon. and learned Gentleman?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the noble Lady rises and catches my eye. The Rule has been suspended.

Mr. Hogg: I apologise for making this error of procedure. I had looked at the rules of order, and misinterpreted them. Otherwise, I would not have forborne to ask for the leave of the House. I had misunderstood what the rules of order said.
Before replying to the debate at large, I should like at once to deal with the last question put to me by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East. I am not sure that I would be within the bounds of order if I were to give her a full answer to her question. It is a very proper question to ask, and if I only give her a very short answer, with the forbearance of the House, I might say that I would be very glad if she were to return to the subject on an occasion when the rules of order are less exacting than they would be were I to enlarge on the matter now.
On the particular application of the hon. Lady's question, there is a Question on the Order Paper for tomorrow, the answer to which I do not want to


anticipate. As to her general question I would simply say that I fully accept her view of my responsibilities in the matter; that is to say, that it is my responsibility at any rate to see that things do not get out of hand in educational matters. My powers are confined to Sections 13 and 68 of the Act, and the hon. Lady will know that there is a fairly long tradition of the limiting circumstances in which successive Ministers of Education have, on the advice of the law officers, interpreted their powers under Section 13. They are fairly well known, but on some other occasion, if the hon. Lady wished it, I would desire to enlarge upon the subject.
My powers under Section 68 are more general in character but more limited in application. That is to say, there must have been something very perverse about the local authority's behaviour before the Secretary of State would be entitled to invoke those powers, and I should be very slow to do this. I want the House to understand that under both Section 13 and Section 68 what I said at the by-election is exactly true. It is not my view of my duties to act as a court of appeal from a local authority. A local authority has the right and the duty under the Act to carry out certain functions. Although I am often being pressed to act as a court of appeal from a local authority, I do not view that as the intention of Parliament in entrusting me with the limited powers under Sections 13 and 68.
In passing, this is also the answer to the criticism of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) when he accused me of neglecting my duties under Section 1, because if he reads the Act he will see that, although the duties under Section 1 are general in character, and I accept the responsibility which they impose upon me, the powers which I am given under the remaining Sections must be read with those duties. I do not consider it my function to exceed my powers in relation to a local education authority.
Nevertheless, those powers were intended to be used in suitable cases and, if I were so advised and I accepted the view, subject to the constitutional limitation which I have tried to express, and if I believed that a situation had arisen where either under Section 13 I ought to withhold my approval of a scheme

or under Section 68 I ought to give a direction, I would not shrink from the responsibility that the law had imposed upon me. I hope that the House will note that I say this in response to a particular question, and that my general approach to my duties is that I am not there to act as a court of appeal for the local electorate. If a local authority, duly elected, chooses an educationally viable scheme it is not my duty to substitute my own judgment for that of the local authority even where my judgment would not coincide with its judgment.
This brings me to the heart of the argument of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North. My conviction, and it is something about which I feel quite deeply, is that there is quite a variety of perfectly allowable options—educationally legitimate options—for local authorities to choose from, and that there is no absolute right or absolute wrong in these cases. There is a broad band of suitable options for local authorities of different political complexions to choose from in accordance with their convictions, and I would not feel inclined to interfere with a local authority, whether Socialist or Conservative, inside the band of those options.
If for some reason a local authority—and I hope that it never would—chose to act perversely and be unreasonable and chose an option which was not educationally acceptable and chose to do something which was outside the band, on either side, of legitimate options, I should feel it my duty to intervene, but not otherwise. This is not a divergence from my speech to the Association of Education Committees on 26th June or from my recent speech at a byelection. I was saying exactly what I have now tried to express to the House. I was saying it to both assemblies, although in the one case I was the guest of a body composed of more parties than one and in the other case I was standing on the platform of a political party expressing that party's point of view. There was no inconsistency, although there was a difference in tone between the two speeches which I felt not only entitled but bound to adopt.
I now turn from the hon. Gentleman's diversion to what was also a central theme in both speeches from the Front Bench opposite. There has not been any


lack of guidance on these matters either from my predecessors or from myself in my previous incarnation and in my present incarnation. If the hon. Member for Sunderland, North will do me the honour of reading my speech to the Association of Education Committees, he will see that on that occasion, only last week, I made some very positive statements which were designed to cover in a reasonable way exactly the ground which many speeches today have covered. I approached these matters in exactly the way which the hon. Gentleman wants. Whether or not he would have agreed with any of the sentiments I expressed, he could not claim that there was any lack of guidance.
When the hon. Gentleman suggests that I have only informed the country seven years later of the view which I formed in 1957, that the tripartite system was on its way out, he is completely wrong. I am not asking him to do any historical research, of course, but if he looked the matter up he would find that I had in terms expressed those views during my previous period of office.
There is considerable confusion in some people's minds about selection and universal comprehensiveness, and about selection and streaming. These are not absolutes. There is no absolute dilemma for the local authorities or for the central Government. This confusion, I thought, was revealed clearly in the interchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) and the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees). The truth is that the situation is more complex than some people think.
Moreover, to those who ask for objective advice and some form of Ministerial guidance I reply that these are contentious matters. Most of the schemes which we have been discussing, whatever their merits or demerits, have been running for a relatively short time or in relatively restricted areas and, although one may express a strong conviction—most of us have expressed strong convictions—yet if one were to ask for an objective assessment of what they had done or failed to do, one would inevitably get from any reasonably impartial judge the conclusion that more time must be given to assess them. Therefore, I do not plead guilty on that count.
In reply to the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East when she says that these local authorities have no one to turn to, I remind the House that both I in my recent speech to the Association of Education Committees and my predecessors have repeatedly stressed the desirability in these cases, whether or not the Minister's approval is technically required under Section 13, of consulting the Ministry, consulting the local teachers, consulting the inspectorate, and even—I say this, with respect, to the hon. Member for Leeds, South with reference to another point which he made—consulting the parents and the local electors, so that these schemes are thoroughly discussed before they are adopted and are not entered upon precipitately, without discussion.
I promise that I should never try to take advantage of any technical powers of approval or disapproval which I had under the Act if they would come early on and try to discuss these things, taking account of the excellent advice from officials, if not from me, which is available in my Department and in the Inspectorate. They have, and I wish it to be generally known that they have, somewhere to go to discuss these matters in confidence before they adopt in public political attitudes from which sometimes it is both embarrassing and difficult to retreat.
I return to the main theme of the Bill. When I moved the Second Reading I ventured to canvass the merits of what is proposed. Although I shall for the sake of correctness refer to some of the more political remarks which have been made in this debate, I will try to confine my main remarks to the educational merits of the Bill rather than deal with all the wider educational issues which have been raised.
We have had some very fascinating speeches today, apart from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Sir J. Pitman), who soared into the stratosphere of metaphysics and psychology, where I shall not attempt to follow him. The majority of speeches have been concerned with the merits of selection and non-selection and the reorganisation of secondary education and comprehensiveness in all its various forms versus the rest. This Bill is not designed precisely to make experiments in reorganisation, although I have tried to define


my attitude to them. It is about experiments with the age of transfer. Although these questions are not unrelated, I should say frankly that they are not the same. I was concerned simply to deal in my speech with the question of the age of transfer.
Before I get to that, I should like to deal with the two points which have been raised on Clauses 2 and 3, which are the subordinate part of the Bill. I confessed candidly that I wished that both Clause 2 and Clause 3 had been introduced before, and I pointed out why when I moved the Second Reading. It seems to me sad that we in this House cannot, in the atmosphere which we have engendered and the rules which we have developed, find a way of passing uncontroversial and humanitarian legislation without so much discussion and exhaustion of Parliamentary time. I believe that there is a wide feeling of agreement in the House on that.
However, I should have been extremely sorry to see an anomaly for the parents of handicapped children which it was promised would be removed and which was obviously an anomaly removed for Scotland but not for England. This is not because I am an English Minister. It is because I am a Minister of the United Kingdom and because I think that the parents of handicapped children south of the Tweed, who are governed by the same legislation as that which governs those north of the Tweed, should not suffer a handicap when it is removed north of the Tweed. This is my conviction.
I have not had very long to consider the speech on 8th May of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, but I noticed that the matter was raised on that Bill only at the recommittal stage. She pointed out with perfect truth that these allowances were originally introduced for the purpose of encouraging parents to keep children on at school beyond compulsory age. She said that a change of this kind required a little more consideration than could be given at that stage of the proceedings. That is what she said; I have read it.
I do not think that my hon. Friend has anything to apologise for. The only thing that I would criticise is the suggestion that we could do it for Scotland without at the same time doing it for

England. That would have been a thoroughly serious and bad piece of legislation.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman contending that if, on a particular occasion, it could not be done for England and Wales, it should not, therefore, be done for Scotland when the opportunity existed for doing it?

Mr. Hogg: The argument is that it is right to do it for both at this time in this case, and I believe that reasonable minded English and Scots would both agree that that is a reasonable proposition. The real trouble here is not the attempt to differentiate between England and Scotland, but the fact that in this House we have not yet evolved an adequate method of dealing with uncontroversial legislation that everyone wants.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that England and Scotland have not the same legislation in this case. We have entirely different Education Acts, as he will see from the fact that, in this Bill, different Clauses apply to England and Scotland. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman further continue research into what happened on 8th May? If he does, he will discover that the Secretary of State for Scotland gloried in the fact that the welfare services under the National Health Service would be dealt with at different times and in a different way for Scotland from that for England and Wales.

Mr. Hogg: We are not talking about the National Health Service. We are talking about this anomaly in the Education Act. I was about to point out that the legislation is exactly the same and it would have been contained in a single Clause but for the fact that the numbers of the Sections and the dates of the Acts are different. That is why we have to have Clauses 2 and 3. I see no reason, therefore, to qualify a word I have said.
The second important point raised by hon. Members was the difference in the levels of maintenance allowances as between various local education authorities. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North referred specifically to the Weaver Committee. I make the fair point that the Bill does not cover this aspect at all. It simply removes an anomaly as between


one class of parent and another class, which deprives one class of a financial advantage which has accrued to another. What the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, was talking about, and what might well be debated more fully on another occasion, is the level of maintenance allowances to all children.
The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East and at least one other hon. Member also raised the question of the general treatment of handicapped children. It is of course true that the level of allowances by some local authorities is higher than that of others. I concede that at once. So long as one has general grant, it is inevitable. However, my impression is that this is because many local education authorities pay higher rates and have more generous income scales than the Weaver Report recommended. So far as I know, the great majority of local education authorities pay at least the Weaver rates.
My Department would be interested to receive any information about local authorities which pay less than what I have described as the Weaver rates, because I would make it my business to initiate informal discussions which might well help remove that difficulty.

Mrs. White: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Weaver rates should not be immutable but adjusted to such inflationary tendencies as there might be?

Mr. Hogg: I do not think that I should find any difficulty in accepting what the hon. Lady says, that nothing is immutable.

Dr. King: The last time the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Ministry gave us figures, a number of local authorities were paying less than the Weaver rates. Will he look into that?

Mr. Hogg: I have been on the Bench throughout the debate, with the result that I have not been able to pursue the matter very far, but I am told that no direct information is available to my Department since the general grant led us, as a matter of policy, to stop policing the rates. Our information, which is likely to be in general true, is that the great majority of local authorities pay either the Weaver rates or something more

generous, and I do not see why they should not do so if their finances allow.

Mr. Willey: When I last raised this issue with the Department I was told that the information was not available because of the block grant system. However, that reply is not adequate and this information ought to be obtained. Handicapped children are a special category of children and are compulsorily obliged to attend special schools. I cannot see any reason why the right hon. and learned Gentleman should not think of providing in that case for at least the minimum scale. I hope that he will consider this in Committee.

Mr. Hogg: There are two separate parts to what the hon. Gentleman has said. I will certainly seriously consider any suggestion from him about what information my Department should provide. However, as regards the differences in scales, I will say only that maintenance allowances are designed to meet the needs of parents who keep their children at school, and this Clause is designed to open those allowances to a new class of parents, but not to differentiate between different classes of parents or different classes of child or to provide different rates of allowances according to whether a child is handicapped or whether it attends a special school. That would be a very much wider proposition and I should have to consider it very carefully before being prepared to concede that there was a great deal in it.

Mr. Boyden: Some time ago, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor gave me details of local authorities which were paying less than Weaver rates. I have in my hand a very detailed document which his Department is now revising for me and which gives the total amount of awards which local authorities make for maintenance and the percentage of their income which this represents. I should have thought that the Department almost certainly had the actual number of awards so that it could easily divide it out and find out what they were.

Mr. Hogg: I would much rather that the hon. Gentleman pursued this detailed matter with me at a time when I was less disadvantaged than now when I have to reply to a debate. I have gone


beyond the terms of the Bill in trying to give the information available and I think that I must now return to the issues which have been raised.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North suggested that I should either indicate rather firmly what the view of my Department was about the suitable age of transfer, or press Lady Plowden for an interim report about the age of transfer. I think that he is wrong about this. I agree with the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) that this would be premature. That was also the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell).
Of course, the possibility of an interim report was one of the first ideas which came into my head after I assumed my present office, and I immediately took great care to find out whether it was feasible. Perhaps I had better not say exactly what inquiries I made, but I made as many obvious inquiries as would have occurred to the hon. Member. I must say that I received a very frosty answer and I was not encouraged to pursue the matter.
On reflection, I was persuaded that the question of age of transfer was so much at the heart of the whole complex of the problems into which Lady Plowden was inquiring that it would be impossible to judge this issue without judging the others. Short of pressing her to form a conclusion in advance of the evidence, or form a conclusion which would prejudice the whole of the rest of her report, the suggestion was not feasible. I have not got the terms of reference here, but they are to this effect: to consider education in all its aspects, including age of transfer to secondary education. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for pressing it upon me because it was one of the first ideas which occurred to me, and therefore if he was mistaken in pressing it on me I was mistaken in pressing it on myself. However, I think the answer is what I have already given, that it is not sensible to prejudge this question because it cannot be disentangled from the general issues which Lady Plowden has to inquire into.

Mr. Willey: I am obliged for what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I

said that I would respect the views of the Plowden Committee upon this matter, but we are nevertheless facing a real difficulty. The Committee is considering something which is very germane to changes which are taking place at the moment. I also appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty, because of this, in providing information which he ought to provide to the authorities which are facing this problem. He might be accused of prejudicing the eventual Plowden Committee Report. But we have to get a sense of urgency here. It is unfortunate that this is the last of the comprehensive Reports that we are having on education, but we are facing a real practical difficulty and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be discouraged but will pursue the matter further.

Mr. Hogg: I agree that there is an element of urgency about this, as there is about all important questions, but it would be a radical change of policy to change the age of transfer from that which was recommended after very careful argument in the Hadow Report, and I could not ask the Plowden Commitee to skimp its work in order to arrive at a preliminary conclusion, because although I think there are great disadvantages in delay I think there would be worse disadvantages in making radical changes and making them wrongly.

Mrs. White: While we agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the undesirability of a precipitate decision which might be wrong, does he not recognise that what he is saying adds force to our argument that there was a lack of foresight in his Department in not recognising that this inquiry should have been made further? It is almost 40 years since Hadow.

Mr. Hogg: I do not agree with that. I think Ministers and officials were very much preoccupied, certainly when I was there last, with the urgent questions attendant upon the provision of secondary education for all. We had the 1944 Act which deliberately chose to adhere to the age of transfer of between 10½ and 12. As a matter of fact, I considered this very point seven years ago when I was in office before. There were some bright young people


in the Department who tried to make me do it, but I was persuaded—and I think rightly—that to have done this before we had got rid of the all-age school and before we had got a stage further with the provision of adequate secondary education for all would have added confusion to extreme pressure.
Although there is an element of judgment in all these choices, I do not regret the choice I then made. Nor am I at all inclined to reproach my successors for having adhered to it. However, if there is a guilty party in this matter, here am I; and I am prepared, at any rate, to say that I stand by what I did. There is an element of judgment in all these things. In handling an administrative problem one has to consider the pressures upon oneself and upon one's officials, and I believe I chose rightly. However, we are again tending to stray a little from the Bill.
I thought that parts of the speeches from both sides of the House, but particularly from that side, were of an electioneering character. There is a time and a place for everything, but I rather thought that this was not the time and possibly not the place. I do not complain that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North called me a liberal who likes laissez faire. It was a pity that there was no one on the Liberal benches to hear him do it. Both parts of the statement are completely wrong. But I rather minded when, having called me a liberal who likes laissez faire, he complained that I was occasionally guilty of outrageous political statements. I thought that that was a case of Satan rebuking sin.
I do not resile from what I said at a by-election about parental choice. There are plenty of people in this country—and I thought that the hon. Member for Leeds, South was one of them—who think that Section 76 of the Act is a dead letter. I should like to tell the hon. Gentleman that I am not one of those people. I think that this is part of the

law of the land, and it will be administered as part of the law of the land as long as I am Minister.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that in answer to a Question that I asked last week he said that authorities generally do not allocate pupils to different types of secondary education to meet the wishes of the parents. It matters not to those who are parents what the Minister would like to do. What does happen is that there is no parental choice at 11-plus.

Mr. Hogg: There is much too little parental choice, in my judgment. If there is a system of selection, there are people who come quite obviously on one side of the line or the other. That is to say, there are some who could not gain by a grammar school course, and some who would gain from no other kind of course. There I would not be tremendously impressed if the father or mother said, "I do not like what you offer". But there is a broad band of cases where the pupil can gain from either kind of course, and indeed from several different kinds of course. Therefore, I say to the hon. Gentleman, to the House, and to local authorities, that I am not prepared to suspend Section 76. I am against forcing children into schools of a type which the parents do not like.
If I am asked for justification for that, I say, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, that there are a number of perfectly legitimate options both for parents and for local authorities. As long as people keep within those options, I have no quarrel with them. I think the law ought still to stand as it is, because Section 76 provides a reasonable safeguard for local authorities through the words
so far as is reasonably practicable".
I have tried to cover a number of questions which have been raised, and I ask the House to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, whatever may have been said that is contentious, has met with almost universal approval for its own terms.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I had hoped that without prompting we would hear from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Robert Cooke: On a point of order. As the House is to discuss education in Scotland for the whole of tomorrow if it so wishes, is it in order to have a further discussion on the subject this evening?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): The hon. Member is in order in raising the subject on the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) is young. The trouble is that I doubt whether he will learn from experience in this House.
We are dealing with a Bill which relates to Scotland. It is not the case that only one Clause relates to Scotland. The fact is that only two Clauses do not. I am tempted to follow the wide and interesting paths which speakers have so far pursued in this debate.
I was amazed at the interesting way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman began his speech. He was asked a question, but he excused himself from answering it by saying that he did not want to get out of order. Then he proceeded to get as far away from the subject of the Bill as he could for at least a quarter of an hour, and gave us his views about selection, streaming and the rest of it. He then said, "I will now deal with the Bill.".

Mr. Hogg: A woman tempted me.

Mr. Ross: And the right hon. and learned Gentleman proved a very weak vessel. What I am concerned about is the fact that although the right hon. and learned Gentleman now has a certain standing in relation to Scottish education, he shows a woeful ignorance of it.
In his remarks on the Clause which is of most importance to Scotland he told us that we were governed by the same legislation. We are not. We are governed by separate Acts of Parliament. Just now he was telling us about parental choice, and how he was not going to become a court of appeal. Does not he

know that under the relevant Scottish Act a parent has the right to say what kind of school his child is to go to, and what kind of secondary education he will follow? Does not he know that if there is disagreement a parent has the right of appeal to the local board of control, and then, if he is still dissatisfied, he can appeal to the Secretary of State who becomes a court of appeal? That is the position under Scottish legislation, and I glory in the fact that there are these differences.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member is not entitled to misrepresent what I say. It will be within the recollection of the House that I said that the Scottish law as dealt with in Clause 3 was the same as the English law as dealt with in Clause 2, and that the only reason why we had two separate Clauses was that the dates of the Acts and the Sections of the Acts were different
I was not talking, and the House knows I was not talking—and I venture to say that the hon. Member knows that I was not talking—about the identity or otherwise of the Scottish law with regard to parental choice or any other part of education.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's second speeches, which tend to be explanations, are always much more explicit and longer than his first ones. If he reads HANSARD tomorrow he will find that his first reference to the subject contained the phrase "are dealt with by the same legislation." They are not. If he wants uniformity of treatment, will he have uniformity of treatment in England and Wales on the one hand, and Scotland on the other, after these provisions become law under the same Statute? Of course there is not uniformity of treatment in England, as compared with Scotland. The position is entirely different. For the same subject we have different legislation and different Acts of Parliament. Even if we put it into one Act of Parliament, because we have to have different Clauses referring back tho different legislation, we get different results.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman glossed over what happened about this subject when we discussed it in the House on a previous occasion Apart


from the hon Lady, he is the only Tory Member who has mentioned the question On 8th May last year we started a debate on the subject of Scottish education at 10 o'clock and finished at 3 o'clock in the morning We dealt with Scottish examination systems, and there was not a single Scottish Tory Member in the Chamber They have Questions on the Order Paper this week about it, but they could not say a word about it when they could have influenced matters
We also dealt with other matters concerning Scottish education At present there is a question concerning the E.I.S., and no doubt some bright Scottish Tory will stooge a Question for the Secretary of State about Glasgow Corporation, and the representations of the teachers. That subject was also dealt with on that night. We dealt with many matters concerning Scottish children, local authorities and professional men, and we dealt with the question of handicapped children. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the hon. Lady was quite right. She had advanced the argument that the matter had come to her late, on recommittal.
I have the report of the debate, and I also wrote down what the hon. Lady said. At the end of a considerable argument she was saying that it could not be done educationally; it would require to be done in another way, and not by way of an educational statute.
What the hon. Lady said was, "At this stage it will require considerable thought and discussion to find another way of doing it". Does she agree that those were her words? Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman like to make another explanation of what he meant to say? The phrase was, "I cannot accept it at this stage without a great deal of thought and consultation to see whether there is another way of getting round the difficulty". That is what she said. My hon. Friend was concerned not only with the Bill but with the Children and Young Persons Bill, with which a United Kingdom Committee was dealing. On Report, as a last desperate measure and knowing that it was outside the Long Title of the Education (Scotland) Bill, he put this

down and got an agreement in relation to recommittal. Just a fortnight before, the Secretary of State said, "We cannot do it unless we do it in joint legislation." But the hon. Lady said that legislation had nothing to do with it, and that there was the question of the anomalies which would arise.
There are two sets of children at school in Scotland at present, both over 15. There are those between 15 and 16 who are the pride and joy of then-parents at the senior secondary schools. It is possible for them to get a maintenance grant. The other children, the handicapped children, because of the compulsory leaving age, are still at school but handicapped—still loved by their parents, but one knows what heavy hearts many of these parents have about them and their prospects for the future. They are denied the maintenance grant.
The hon. Lady said that if we gave to the handicapped it would mean that people who were at school compulsorily were being paid as against those who were there voluntarily. She said that it used to be a gap of two years but that when we raised the school-leaving age the injustice would be wiped out. The implication of her remark was that nothing could be done educationally until 1970, although at that time we had a different Prime Minister and the right hon. and learned Gentleman was lording it elsewhere. We had not then even had the announcement about 1970. The hon. Lady explained to us that it might be done by maintenance grant but that it was all wrong to do it in that way.
That is the part of the reason why the debate went on so long. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) was there. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) had moved it in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Mary- hill (Mr. Hannan). My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) was there, and spoke, and I managed to get a few words in myself. [Interruption.] Who supported the hon. Lady? Not one of them, either by their presence or by their voice. She will remember that that night she was left completely on her own. Even his noble Lordship did not show up that night. The Secretary of State disappeared at 10 o'clock and left her on her own—

Mr. Lawson: We broke up early because we were sorry for the hon. Lady sitting there so long.

Mr. Ross: It was not a case of being sorry. It was out of consideration for the hon. Lady.

Earl of Dalkeith: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not learned yet that quality is sometimes better than quantity.

Mr. Ross: Until we hear the noble Lord we are not able to judge, because such is his quantity that we do not know whether he has any quality apart from the quality with which he was born, and that has a special meaning in Scotland.
This is something which should have been done long ago. The hon. Lady and the Government had an opportunity to do it in May last year. Up gets the Secretary of State for Education and Science and says, "If only we could have found a way in this House to deal with uncontroversial legislation and get it passed speedily, but we have not." Does he know that last year we in Scotland persuaded the Secretary of State, and through him the Leader of the House, to give us a new Sessional Order which enabled us to set up a second Scottish Committee to deal with private legislation?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I think that these reminiscences are going a bit too far.

Mr. Ross: It is not reminiscence. It is a case of answering the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because we did pass two Private Bills of this character. If the Government had done the same with this subject, this would probably have been law, but the Government did not do it. They held up other private legislation as well. This is not our fault. It is the Government's fault.
I think that the hon. Lady should quite honestly get up and say that she regrets that she did not exercise what

power she had last year to accept our Amendment. She was new to the job. I think it was the second time she had appeared in the House at that Box. It might well be that if she had then had the experience she has now gained, and the realisation of the power of persuasion she can wield in the Scottish Office, she would have exercised that authority at that time and not come to the House with these dreadful orders to resist, to use any argument she liked but not to give in, rather like a former Minister of Education who said: "Treat 'em mean and keep them keen."
The Government have treated meanly the parents of handicapped children in Scotland, but we are glad that at long last we have got what we asked for.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).

[Sir ROBERT GRIMSTON in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable county schools and voluntary schools to be established for providing full-time education by reference to age-limits differing from those specified in the Education Act 1944, as amended by the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1948, and to enable maintenance allowances to be granted in respect of pupils at special schools who would be over compulsory school age, or, in Scotland, over school age, but for section 38(1) of the said Act of 1944 or section 32(4) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under any other enactment.—[Mr. Hogg.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — PERPETUITIES AND ACCUMULATIONS BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified].

10.55 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This may appear to be a somewhat recondite and technical subject, but it has some important social and economic consequences because it deals with questions of whether there should be a limit to the length of time during which capital should be tied up and the length of time within which interests should vest in trust funds and funds disposed of by will.
These are important matters, first, as to whether there should be a limit in these matters and, secondly, how long that limit should be. When those matters have been discussed and decided, the question arises as to how those limits should be applied in a great variety of circumstances applying to many forms of dispositions and instruments and to many different types of interest which are created under those instruments.
It is because the Bill deals largely with those latter questions that it is a technical matter. We have been involved in some technical and, at the same time, difficult discussion on the subject. We should, nevertheless, not overlook the fact that the Bill will have important impacts, first on family settlements and on dispositions by will—not only of great estates but many individual testators and many people who are making family arrangements in relation to family businesses and quite small estates—and, secondly, it will have important impacts indeed upon pension funds, where very large funds are at stake. The impact of the Bill on these funds will concern those who have an interest in them both as to the continuation of those funds and on the right to accumulate the income of the funds.
We made some Amendments in Committee and I should like to express to hon. Members who where members of the

Committee my appreciation and that of the Government for putting at the disposal of the Committee their knowledge and experience of this difficult subject and for the help they gave in trying to improve the Bill. You will have observed, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that there were no Amendments down on Report. This is due not to exhaustion on the part of Members of the Committee but, I hope, only because they have exhausted their capacity to improve the Bill further.
The Bill removes some of the inflexibility of the present law and it will, I hope, do something to make more real the giving of effect to the actual wishes of testators and those who have made settlements. It particularly does so by looking to see what happens as time progresses, rather than considering at the moment when an instrument begins to operate every possible contingency which could occur, and saying if one of them could occur outside the proper period, then to that extent the disposition is invalid.
The other major reform is that the Bill introduces a convenience for conveyancers in allowing a fixed period of 80 years instead of a conveyancer having to rely on the device of a Royal lives clause or other device for use for private settlement and pension funds.
I wish, once more, to express the gratitude of the Government and, I am sure, of all hon. Members to the Law Reform Committee, the members of which considered this difficult subject. The Committee consisted of two lords justices, two high court judges, as they then were, three members of the Bar, two solicitors, four academic lawyers of distinction and a secretariat provided by the Lord Chancellor's Department.
I am sure that a difficult technical and complicated subject of this sort could not have been dealt with except by a Law Reform Committee that could bring expertise of the standing and quality that this Committee could bring to bear on the subject. I think it now shows that the Law Reform Committee can deal with these extremely difficult topics in a way in which almost no other committee, unless similarly constituted, could have dealt with them. It also shows that law reform is not simple and easy and cannot be done in a hurry,


and requires very long and careful consideration.
I think that I need say no more as the Bill has been very thoroughly discussed on each of its stages. I commend it to the House.

11.6 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: There is not much left for me to say on the Third Reading of the Bill. I certainly think that we achieved one great objective in the course of our discussions, and that was to discover what the Bill meant. It is a Bill which has far-reaching implications, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. It is not quite as abstruse as it looks at first sight, but it is nevertheless a Bill which, on the whole, is removed from our daily dealings and normal intercourse one with another.
I do not feel that my anxieties have been wholly removed with regard to the substitution in Clause 1 of the 80 years' perpetuity period. I do not feel more convinced than I was earlier by the argument that was used of the Royal lives device as a justification for making a discretionary trust an easier thing to draft and to incorporate in a document. However, I am glad to assent to the new proposal in the Bill because, on the whole, I think that the advantages which the Bill confers in improving the law with regard to perpetuities and accumulations outweighs that disadvantage.
I certainly agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the "wait-and-see" Clause, Clause 3, is a good one. I think that it will remove a good deal of uncertainty and will give rise to much more precision in the ascertaining of the interests of beneficiaries under dispositions.
I should also like to take this opportunity of thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the great help that he has given the House personally, and those associated with him, both in the course of our earlier debates on the Floor of the House and in the course of our Committee debates. I also join with him in expressing appreciation of the work of the Law Reform Committee, I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that no single body of human beings could have addressed itself to this task as that Committee has done and that we owe it a great debt of gratitude

for undertaking an examination of the existing law with regard to perpetuities and accumulations.
I should like to put one or two points to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I understand that he has already received, as I have, representations with regard to the possible effect of the Bill on pension schemes. In particular, I understand that apprehension has been felt with regard to this possible result of the Bill. Clause 15 of the Bill may, so it is thought, impose serious difficulties as far as the accumulation of rules are concerned in the case of privately administered pension schemes.
That would not be the case if Section 164 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, does not apply to pension schemes. I gather that the view of the Government is that that Section, in fact, would not be applicable to such pension schemes. I believe that the Government have cited and relied upon two decided authorities, the second of them, which is the more directly in point, being the case of the A.E.G. Unit Trust, reported in 1957 in Chancery, page 415.
Although the Government relied on that case, I gather that those who have put difficulties which they feel with regard to the point are not wholly reassured, and I would be grateful to know if the right hon. and learned Gentleman has any statement which he thinks he can make on the point.
The other point that I gather has been raised with the Government is one turning not on the accumulations but on the perpetuities aspect of the Bill. The point centres on the "wait-and-see" Clause—Clause 3. I understand that it is felt that it may be well nigh impossible to administer both existing and future pensions schemes because of the new situation introduced by Clause 3. It is thought in some quarters that the possible results of that Clause may be that each individual payment under a pensions scheme will have to be treated as a separate disposition, and will have to have applied to it a separate perpetuity period. If that is the case, so the apprehension is voiced, it will be well nigh impossible to administer pensions schemes.
I have reason to think that the Government have answered the apprehensions expressed, and feel that no difficulty


need be feared in that regard. Nevertheless, the doubts have been voiced, and it would be a great help to those concerned with the administration of pensions schemes if the right hon. and learned Gentleman felt able, if the House gave him leave, to say what the Government feeling is with regard to these two categories. I gather that there are other similar points of a highly technical nature which I do not think it would really help the House now to raise, but any further and general statement that the right hon. and learned Attorney-General might think fit to make would be greatly appreciated among those who have to deal with pensions schemes.

11.7 p.m.

The Attorney-General: With the permission of the House, perhaps I might deal with the points raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice). I am very grateful to him for his support of the Bill. He asked, first, whether Section 164 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, might not apply so that pensions funds would be adversely affected. He is right in saying that this point has been dealt with in correspondence and, certainly, the view of myself and those who have also considered the Bill, and of my noble Friend, the Lord Chancellor, is that Section 164 is inapplicable to pensions funds; that the Section was never intended to apply, and did not apply, and did not have reference to bargains or contracts entered into for purposes other than the purpose of accumulation, and that if that were not so it would lead to great difficulties, because it would endanger such essentially commercial transactions as partnership agreements which provide that certain sums shall be drawn from the profits, and that the remaining profits shall be accumulated and divided up only at the end of a long term of years.
Unless the principle underlying the particular cases to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred is that commercial transactions, contractual transactions, transactions that are not intended merely to provide a fund the income from which shall be accumulated for a number of years are not subject to Section 164, very great difficulties indeed would occur. It is quite plain, I should have thought, that should

the courts disagree with the view I have expressed of the inapplicability of Section 164 to pensions funds and other such commercial transactions, any Government would have immediately to legislate retrospectively to put the matter right, because one could not leave a situation in which the accumulations that had been made under very numerous funds and very numerous arrangements were found to be invalid and improper. The matter would have to be put right in such circumstances by legislation, should the courts in the end disagree with the view that I and the Lord Chancellor in correspondence have expressed.
It might be said that this could have been dealt by putting in a Clause for the removal of doubt, and that this would have prevented any possibility that the courts might disagree with the view that has been expressed, but it would then have been necessary not only to have defined what a pension fund was to which Section 164 was not to apply, but to lay down a complete code of all those commercial and other transactions in which and to which Section 164 was not to apply. This would have raised very difficult and awkward questions, and had legislation been confined only to the question of pension funds it would have thrown very much more doubt upon the other transactions to which it is at present thought that Section 164 does not apply.
So much for the point on Section 164. As to the impact of the principle of "wait-and-see" contained in Clause 3 upon pension funds, I find it difficult to understand how it can be thought that that provision will apply to each individual contribution as it is made to a pension fund. Most pension funds will still be subject to either a Royal lives clause or possibly in future a fixed period of 80 years which, whatever one may say about family settlements, will be of great use to conveyancers in drawing up a perpetuity period for a pension fund. What one will have to wait and see is whether the fund set up lasts for the specified number of years or when the Royal lives drop.
Until that happens the fund can properly be carried on without any contravention of the perpetuities rule and therefore it does not seem that there can be


any cause or any reason why anybody should consider that individual contributions must be separately analysed, because if at the moment when they are made the "wait-and-see" period has not come to an end they will be a proper contribution to an existing fund which is being properly carried on.
I therefore find great difficulty in understanding what is the point that is being made under this heading. Those on whom I rely for advice also find it difficult to see that there is any cause for anxiety and I hope that the House will accept the Bill and give it a Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — HOSPITAL SERVICES, LOWESTOFT AND YARMOUTH

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]

11.13 p.m.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to raise this matter tonight and to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health for being here to reply. I also welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) is here to join me in the debate.
Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft have a long and deep-rooted rivalry and it is not always that my hon. Friend and I have exactly the same views on leading issues of the day, but as we have personally good friendship and good relationships, so I think have our two towns. Certainly anything that we can do to foster the good relationships between the two towns we shall try to do.
My purpose in raising the question of the future of the Lowestoft Hospital and of hospital services on the East Coast, which affect Great Yarmouth as well, is to call attention to various problems which have cropped up in the last year or two. During the past two or three years I have been waging something of a campaign to bring about an improvement in the orthopaedic and maternity

services at the hospital. Whilst I must admit that I have had my disappointments with the maternity service, on the question of providing further maternity services I have met the Chairman and the Chief Medical Officer of the Eastern Regional Hospital Board. They have explained the position fully to me and I have to say frankly that I have been quite convinced that their decision not to build further maternity accommodation in Lowestoft but to concentrate on building it at Great Yarmouth was a correct decision. I should like to hear from my hon. Friend when he expects the new maternity unit at the new Northgate Hospital at Great Yarmouth to come into operation, and I hope also that he will give some idea of its cost.
Once the new maternity unit is completed, the six beds at Lowestoft will become available for general practitioner maternity cases, and, of course, on completion of the new general hospital at Northgate, the number of maternity beds at Lowestoft will go up to 24. This, I think, will be ample for the needs of the Lowestoft area. At the moment, there are about 800 births registered in Lowestoft during one year. Although we have only six beds, 254 live births and nine still-births were registered as taking place at the hospital last year. No one can deny, therefore, that there is a great need for more beds; but, equally, no one can deny that the staff did a wonderful job in dealing with the number they had.
I pay my tribute to the hospital staff and to the work which they do. There is no better or more loyal staff anywhere, but, unfortunately, their morale has been lowered recently by what I must describe as irresponsible rumours surrounding the future of Lowestoft Hospital. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to state quite categorically tonight that there is no intention to close Lowestoft Hospital, that it will continue to play the rôle earmarked for it in the Hospital Plan, and that the 74 acute beds which are mentioned in the Plan will be used for ordinary surgical cases as well as for other purposes.
I hope that my hon. Friend will say that the new Northgate Hospital, with all the equipment now needed for neurosurgical, orthopaedic and serious operations, will concentrate on that type of


work. At present, most of my constituents who have serious illnesses of those types have to go to London, Cambridge or Norwich, and it will be a great improvement for them and their relations who have to visit them if we have a new hospital as close as Great Yarmouth. We have to realise, of course, that, whatever our local ambitions may be, the important point is that patients must have first consideration and we must do what is right for them.
The waiting list at the hospital has grown in the last two years. My hon. Friend will be able to confirm that much of this is due to an increase in the number of orthopaedic cases. This follows partly from the fact that we pressed very strongly, two or three years ago, for greater orthopaedic facilities, as a result of which a specialist was appointed to Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft, and he has now taken on a good many of the cases which previously were put on the Norwich list. This has increased our waiting list locally, perhaps giving a rather unfair impression of the local situation.
I want this debate tonight to kill the rumours which have been floating round the town about the future of the hospital, to show quite plainly that the hospital has shortcomings but that they can be overcome. I want my hon. Friend to give encouragement to the medical and hospital staff generally, to restore their confidence and to enable them to see a reasonable future ahead.
My hon. Friend could do something else. He could, as an earnest of his good intentions for the future of the hospital, say a word about the need for a new pathology laboratory. The one we have badly needs replacement. Perhaps my hon. Friend will also accept my thanks for the new casualty and out-patient department that has recently come into operation and also for the provision of a new theatre.
If he can give me the assurances I have asked for, I think he will realise that I am trying to take a balanced view—and my constituents, I am sure, will do the same—of the need of the East Coast generally. We need improvements in the East Coast hospital services generally. We are keen that these should be carried out quickly and efficiently.

With that in view, we are prepared if necessary to forget our local problems in order to achieve better all-round services.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Fell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) for his kindness in allowing me time to say a few words in the debate which, as he said, affects both his constituency and mine. I also welcome anything that brings the two constituencies closer together. He has a reputation in this House for being most zealous for the people of the area and it is typical of him that he should have started this short debate in this generous way.
I thoroughly support everything he said and underline the question he put about the new Northgate Hospital, the maternity part of which I understand is a special provision to be built first. I understand that it will be ready in a year or two—I am not sure which. I hope that it is the former, because the position is rather serious. When my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary answered a Question I put to him about the number of babies born at home in the County Borough of Great Yarmouth, he said that the percentage was 55 per cent. of live births in 1962. The figure I had was 62 per cent. I am not proud that that figure was greater, although I was assured that it was correct. It was, indeed, alarming because it was the highest percentage in the country.
If a mother wants to have her baby at home then, provided that she is fit, she should be allowed to do so. Nevertheless, I always feel that women are not all the same in these matters. I remember, as a boy in New Zealand, a Maori woman with 11 children. One morning she cooked breakfast for the family, cleaned up the house, had a baby at about 11.30 and then cooked lunch. Not all women are the same, however, and certainly not all could achieve such a miraculous thing.
Perhaps admission to hospital is not necessary for the first birth but I think that it is necessary for births thereafter, if only from the point of view that the mother can then get a little respite from looking after the rest of the family.
It is important to get these facilities not only for Lowestoft but for Great


Yarmouth as well and to get them very quickly. According to the statistics, the people of Great Yarmouth are the worst provided for in the country in this respect. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is doing and will do the best he can.
Another aspect is that of staffing. The nurses do a wonderful jot—and I have had quite close experience of it. What worries me is how we are to get the nurses for these great hospitals which we are building and rebuilding and which we are to build. I wonder whether the Ministry of Health could have a further examination of this subject. My hon. Friend will probably agree with me that it is not basically a question of wages necessarily, although that enters into it when it comes to competition with other wages in the locality, but it is also a question of hours of work—which are very difficult—and facilities.
The facilities for the nurses in some hospitals in the counties are abysmal. The nurses do the best they can with them, but it does not help to attract nurses to the profession if facilities are bad. If facilities were better and if there were more staff so that young nurses did not have to do jobs which they were not competent to do, so that their jobs were not so alarming for them, more nurses might be attracted into the profession.
I end by saying how grateful I am to my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft for giving me this opportunity to speak, and I hope and trust that the maternity block in Northgate Hospital will be built very soon.

11.27 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernard Braine): I should like to compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) on the way in which they have put their case. It is not the first time that they have pressed me or my right hon. Friend on the subject of hospital facilities in their area.
The area with which they are concerned is in the easternmost part of the East Anglian hospital region. In this part of the region, much of which is sparsely populated, the main hospital

centres are Norwich and Great Yarmouth. This has been so for many years and the main reason is, of course, that Norwich and Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft contain about half the 500,000 or so population of the whole sector. Some increases in population are expected to occur in the years ahead, but although there may be local variations in these increases, the pattern is likely to remain approximately what it now is. The Norwich hospitals serve the general hospital needs of two-thirds of the whole and the Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft hospitals the remaining third.
In this sector of the region, two district general hospitals are needed to serve this population of about 500,000, the several Norwich hospitals acting as one. There is not now, nor is there likely to be in the future, a need for a third such major district centre. What I might describe as the coastal population, centred mainly in Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft, is therefore expected to share one hospital, and our broad planning for the hospital service is on that basis.
The Hospital Plan, published in 1962, foresaw that as major development schemes were completed, they would enable better provision to be made for the work now done at Lowestoft General Hospital, but this was essentially a long-term forecast. Tonight, my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft has asked me about the future of the hospital in his town. He will be glad to know that the Regional Hospital Board is not contemplating its closure. In fact, the Board has always considered that there will be a continuing need for substantial hospital facilities in Lowestoft. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Hospital Plan shows his hospital as still having 98 beds in use by about 1975.
Of course, the rôle of the hospital may change: as developments take place elsewhere, and as the new district general hospital develops in Great Yarmouth and begins to provide a full range of services for the people of the area. I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no intention to reduce the actual number of beds in Lowestoft, though there may well be some changes in their use. My hon. Friend has asked me particularly whether the acute beds


which will still be available at Lowestoft by 1975 will be used for ordinary surgery. He will appreciate, I know, that not even doctors, let alone laymen, can be sure how particular conditions will be treated 10 years from now, and what will then be the ideal pattern of medical services, since the pace of progress in medical science is very rapid indeed. But I can tell him that when the project team which will be set up to plan the new Northgate Hospital in Great Yarmouth gets down to work, it is bound to take into account the excellent surgical team already operating at Lowestoft. This, I think, is a matter which is best discussed at professional level.
As my hon. Friend has rightly surmised, once the new Northgate Hospital is fully in commission and is equipped to deal with serious illness and major operations, Lowestoft and Yarmouth patients, who at the moment have to go to hospitals in London, Norwich and Cambridge, will be treated much nearer home. It is quite clear that my hon. Friend's constituents will benefit considerably from the developments in Great Yarmouth, and I was glad to hear him say so tonight.
My hon. Friend quite properly raised the question of provision for maternity. As I think he knows, the Regional Hospital Board has carefully considered interim schemes to increase the number of maternity beds at Lowestoft. Unfortunately, it has found no acceptable solution. In view of this, and also because of the need to release the accommodation now occupied by the maternity department at the Great Yarmouth Hospital for use as a gynaecology unit, the Board has decided that the provision of additional maternity beds at Great Yarmouth must be given priority. I can tell my hon. Friends that the Board is considering a scheme at the moment. It has drawn up provisional schedules of accommodation as a basis of discussion and is treating the matter as one of great urgency. I am not able to answer precisely the questions about cost or about the date of completion, but I will watch the situation closely and I will let my hon. Friends have full information on that subject as soon as it is available. Once

this scheme is completed, it will greatly ease the pressure in regard to maternity beds in the area.
My hon. Friend has asked whether, when this new maternity provision is made at Great Yarmouth, the six maternity beds at Lowestoft might again become available for general practitioners. I know that this is a matter of some importance to general practitioners in Lowestoft, but it is not one on which I can or should pronounce tonight. It is, I suggest, best discussed at professional level. There are a number of ways in which this might be done, and I would certainly expect it to be done at the appropriate time.
I fully subscribe to what my hon. Friend said about the devoted staff at Lowestoft General Hospital and the services provided there. But, as he knows, it is impossible to expand this hospital. The site is far too cramped. However, it seems certain that the hospital will continue to serve local needs after the new District General Hospital is built at Great Yarmouth, and in this rôle it is expected to have out-patients, casualty, pathology and X-ray departments. It will have more maternity beds and there will be provision for long-stay elderly patients. As I have already indicated, there may well be some surgery.
No one would claim that the present service at Lowestoft is entirely adequate for present-day needs. We are engaged all over the country in endeavouring to improve our hospital services, and a massive programme is under way. This is the reason why we have a hospital plan. Nevertheless, the Board has in the past spent not inconsiderable sums on improving the hospital at Lowestoft. Up to a year ago it had spent more than £35,000, the main items being a new boiler house and plant, air-conditioning for the main operating theatre, and improvements to the X-ray department. In the past 12 months a further £20,000 has been spent, including improvements to the casualty surgery which was brought into use a few weeks ago, and to the new theatre which began operating on Monday of this week.
My hon. Friend has mentioned the inadequacy of the pathology laboratory at Lowestoft. I agree with him about this. It certainly needs attention. I am glad to say that the Regional Hospital


Board shares this view and has agreed in principle to carry out improvements which are to be discussed in detail shortly. My hon. Friend will know that there is not a great deal of scope here, because space is limited, but I hope that something can be done to improve the conditions under which valuable work is done.
I know that my hon. Friend has been concerned about the waiting list position at Lowestoft. I agree with him that the figures show rather more patients to be waiting for general surgery, ear, nose and throat and orthopaedic surgery at the end of 1963 than at the end of 1962, but the explanation is simple. Because of the appointment of new consultant staff, local patients who would formerly have had to go to Norwich are now being seen locally. More work is being done at Lowestoft, and it is being done under better conditions. It is true that in some specialties a few more patients are waiting. In gynaecology, where a new consultant has been appointed, more patients have been seen and treated. The picture is not one of stagnation or neglect, but rather one of improving facilities and better use being made of them.
I can well understand the view of my hon. Friend's constituents, many of whom feel that it will be a loss if their main hospital services are developed outside their town. I am sure that on reflection they will realise that there can be only one major district hospital for the two towns. I hope that they will see that it is necessary to take a firm decision as to where the new general hospital for the area must be located. The decision to build it at Great Yarmouth flows from the concept of a district general hospital as outlined in the Hospital Plan. This concept envisages such a hospital as normally containing 600 to 800 beds serving a population of 100,000 to 150,000. Other hospitals might be smaller, though they would rarely be of less than 300 beds. Each of these would be located in or near the middle of one of the centres of population of the area it serves. In practice, priority is bound to be given to the centre which is already serving a greater

population, and in this instance, as both my hon. Friends recognise, this centre is Great Yarmouth.
There is a further consideration which is sometimes in danger of being overlooked. It is not always appreciated by laymen that recent years have seen considerable advances in medical science involving considerable changes in methods of diagnosis and treatment, and these advances will continue. Most patients needing in-patient care nowadays require the attention not only of the physician or of the surgeon, but also of other specialists such as radiologists, pathologists and anaesthetists in support who work as a team and require to have at their disposal complicated and costly equipment.
The district general hospital offers the most practical method of placing this full range of hospital facilities at the disposal of patients. My hon. Friend has rightly said to me that the first consideration in these matters must always be what is best for the patient, and viewed in this way I feel sure that it will be seen that what is being planned for this important area of East Anglia is really in the best interests of all who may need hospital care there
My hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth raised the question of staffing. I entirely agree with what he said. But with the development of better hospital facilities conditions will improve for the staffs. The conditions in the new district general hospitals which are now being completed are superb, and second to none. We hope that they will attract the right kind of staff, in the right numbers. There are local shortages, but generally speaking staffing is running at record figures.
I am glad that my hon. Friends have raised this subject tonight, because it has given me the opportunity of putting this knotty local question into some sort of perspective. I hope, therefore, that what I have said will be of some use not only to my hon. Friends but to their constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.